Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computed Tomography Laser Mammography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arkyan • (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Computed Tomography Laser Mammography

Computed Tomography Laser Mammography (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This device cann't get the PMA from FDA in the course of four years [1]. First attempt was made at April 2003, second is still planned. There are more successful devices for optical breast imaging, such as SoftScan (ART, Canada [2]) or ComfortScan (DOBI, USA, [3]) Alex Spade 20:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep appears to be a straightforward technical article, it is not down to Wikipedia to assess whether other technologies are more successful. Iridescenti 21:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Additional information. The style of current article is close to information-advertising publication, there is no adequate science description of techinque for image reconstaction. The most of publications about CTLM in press and web was also wtote in same information-advertising style. There is no adequate description at company web-site, the most its pages is "Coming Soon - Under Construction" from the summer-fall 2004 (when I was defending my PhD-thesis). Early the company-creator was caught on falsification of results (several reconstractions was enhanced via photo image editor). Alex Spade 17:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

*Delete A medical device that is not yet used cannot be notable, unless it for some truly exceptional reason has received actual public attention and coverage, and no such sources are provided.DGG 04:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC) .

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 14:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Iridesscenti. It's a very good stub to me. The Evil Clown Please review me! 14:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no reliable independent sources cited. Sandstein 14:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The distinction that needs to be made here is unverified as opposed to unverifiable, and this is a case of the prior which can be resolved by performing the most superficial of Google searches. [4] RFerreira 16:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A simple, straightforward article about a technology which has physical existence. Whether it is, or is not FDA approved is wholly beside the point.--Anthony.bradbury 20:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • CTLM is rather IDSI-trademark than techinque, the real techinque is some variant of optical tomography for scattering media. Alex Spade 21:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not attributed doesn't mean not attributable. I just added a bunch of references as well as a google scholar search for more scientific references to the article. Sancho (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I am convinced, my !vote in the previous AfD was too hasty.DGG 06:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • DELETE: The term "Computed Tomographic Laser Mammography" is strictly used by a single speculative penny stock company and the device itself was rejected by the FDA. The FDA has the last word on the subject IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.22 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.