Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HeartMate


 * 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   merge to Ventricular assist device. Black Kite 10:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

HeartMate

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a trademark name for a type of Ventricular assist device. The particular product is already discussed an an example on Ventricular assist device so this page is redundant and includes unnecessary detail that promotes the manufacturer without adding particular value than already exists on the main Ventricular assist device article. The page should be deleted as there is no particular information that is unique or valuable enough to need to be merged to the general main article. It should be noted that none of the alternative devices listed on Ventricular assist device has their own Wikipedia articles. Ash (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BEFORE, alternatives to deletion should be exhausted before an article is brought here. One of the alternatives would be a redirect to Ventricular assist device, and I'd be interested to know why the nominator has rejected that?— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The page is not a stub so a redirection would blank a non-trivial page without discussion. Creating an AFD gives the opportunity for discussion and does not preclude an eventual redirect.—Ash (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, should be merged into Ventricular assist device Billbowery (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC).


 * Keep or Merge - discussion above compelling - suggest nominator reverses AfD nomination and appends a Merge tag instead. Williamborg (Bill) 01:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (note) As stated in the nomination there is no particular information that is unique or valuable enough to need to be merged to the general main article.—Ash (talk) 06:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I could certainly write more thoroughly about this particular product within the VAD article page, but I am worried that the general article will then be dominated by information about one specific product. These are highly complex products that are of vital importance to those who need them, and I think it behooves us to set a very high standard for the amount of information we include. Second, there are many examples in Wikipedia of specific products within a product category. Operating systems, video games, etc., all have countless articles on their own. So this nomination has absolutely no basis in Wikipedia policy. Leifern (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (note) The relevant guidance is at WP:PRODUCT (though consider that the general article on these types of product rather than a particular trademarked example may be sufficient). You should probably also consider the notability of Thoratec Corporation against the guidance of WP:ORG, this does not currently have an article.—Ash (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for that clarification. I think it is pretty clear that the HeartMate series are indeed notable, and I expect that you'll withdraw the nomination. Leifern (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument appears to be based on OTHERSTUFF, this is not an accepted rationale for an article. Nothing you have said so far appears to invalidate the nomination.—Ash (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, my argument is that there is nothing about this subject that makes it non-notable. This is a product that is important for the public interest; there are plenty of third-party, non-promotional citations; and it meets all notability standards. Rather, the nomination seems to rest on your opinion about what is valuable. As for the OTHERSTUFF argument, I am simply trying to say that if articles about specific video games, or fictional characters actually become featured articles, then there should be no question that information about products that mean life or death for its patients, should be valuable. Leifern (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Pare and merge or Delete. Even if significant coverage in reliable third-party sources are available (there are none at the article and none mentioned above here), the coverage in the article is way in excess of what would be considered notable or appropriate for coverage in an encyclopedia. The appropriate amount of coverage (which may be none) can easily be incorporated into the main article on VAD. Bongo  matic  01:49, 26 September 2009 (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.