Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breastlight


 * 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 speedy delete. Uninvolved admin deleted it as A10 speedy. (non-admin closure) Savonneux (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Breastlight

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am nominating for these reasons: 1 and 2

The article is clever tactic to promote the equipment Breastlight. The article doesn't stae any new idea which is not covered in Breast cancer awareness, Breast cancer screening, Breast cancer management and Risk factors for breast cancer.

This article would be an implausible redirect to any article. For which I propose delete. -- Marvellous Spider -Man 04:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The links provided by the nominator don't constitute a valid reason for deletion, but do provide a warning that we need WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for an article on this product, although currently this is an advocacy piece about breast screening in general rather than an article about the product named in the title. Google Scholar finds a few studies of the efficacy of Breastlight, but no secondary sources such as review articles. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 11:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 11:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment This nomination doesn't include any rationale for deletion and will probably be closed if you don't add one. I'm not against deleting this article as it was already deleted as a speedy G11 log (nominated by myself) yesterday.--Savonneux (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The nominator didn't provide a valid reason for deletion, but I did. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Procedural Close No policy reason stated by nom. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But, as I said immediately above your comment, I had already provided a valid deletion reason before you commented (and the nominator has also now, after your comment, provided a deletion rationale). If this is procedurally closed then it will only be immediately restarted, so let's drop the wikilawyering and discuss the substantive issue. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2016 (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.