Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain vital signs


 * 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Brain vital signs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional - the current article is a WP:COATRACK for Ryan D'Arcy's research. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 16:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Brain vital signs is a new neuroscience technology that is groundbreaking because it's newly developed by several neuro-researchers from Simon Fraser University including Dr. Ryan D'Arcy. The neuro-technology is used in several clinical studies by other non-related researchers. It's no different from when Elon Musk and his teams develop something new and innovative. Musk's Wiki entry includes all his companies/initiatives, each entities with its own wiki page. I cross referenced Wiki's deletion policy and don't see that this entry incurs any infractions? Info is correct and referenced and sourced. Can you advise how you're seeing differently and how I can revise to address your concerns? Keep in mind I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so not well versed in coding etc. so apologies for format issues. YoEmFuji (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC) User:YoEmFuji 10:42, 1 August 2019 (PST)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 *  Keep  There are a few bits of language that are puffery but those can be removed. The article cites both academic and popular sources that appear to support WP:GNG. I read WP:COAT but don't see how it applies here: a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely — the nominal subject is the framework, and that's what the article discusses. editing to add: I'll leave my previous comment, but I'm glad some editors with experience on medical articles showed up to comment; I defer to their expertise. Schazjmd   (talk)  17:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  Schazjmd   (talk)  17:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete – Overemphasis on one research team, overemphasis on one research teams' primary studies, and promotional. I'm not seeing secondary medical sources that we could summarize, otherwise the article could be saved. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Thjarkur. On topics pertaining to medicine, we have to be particularly vigilant in avoiding churnalism and other kinds of uncritical coverage. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Thjarkur. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just an advertisement for the scientific framework. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in multiple indepenent sources.Pontificalibus 11:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:MEDRS compatible sources lacking. JFW &#124; T@lk  21:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's too much of synthesis. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.