Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flow-through test


 * 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. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Music1201  talk  03:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Flow-through test

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is pure commercial spam that just promotes the medical services and products of one company. All refs cited are to the company and any potentially useful text is not referenced. The article has been justifiably tagged as having been the product of WP:COI. Ahunt (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete needs independent sources not those of the products manufacturers website. If appropriate sources are found no concern with recreation. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, with the same addendum as Doc James. --RexxS (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete an obvious piece of COI work, but (as is said above), if independent and significant sources are found later for what appears to be pin-prick blood testing, then OK with recreation. Kudos to M. A. Bruhn for bringing this article to a good state. Changing to Keep. Pinging HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: AfD is explicitly for deleting articles that cannot be improved through editing. This is a common enough point of care assay, with a well described history, and which is easy to find discussed by independent sources. I've gone ahead and deleted the medmira references, included new sources, and rewritten most of the article; as it is now there should be no more objections to keeping it. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: That is great work, it looks a lot better now. Based on these improvements I now am in favour of keep. - Ahunt (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep : chapeau to M.A. Bruhn for addressing the concerns of the nomination by editing the article. DeVerm (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep.  A successful fix.  DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 00:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. That was a fast, quality de-COI-ification on M. A. Bruhn's part. Jergling (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Bravo to M. A. Bruhn. There may be some ambiguity remaining in that non-clinical "flow-through assays" also exist (I added a MEDRS-compliant source discussing some), but that's a minor concern. Article as it stands approximately meets WP:MEDRS, with clinically relevant information cited to respected recent reviews. FourViolas (talk) 06:36, 7 July 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.