Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MiteArrest


 * 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. Jaranda wat's sup 01:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

MiteArrest


Contested brought here for consensus. RobertG &#9836; talk 11:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - I see no case made in the article for why MiteArrest is notable; it reads like a technical advert. --RobertG &#9836; talk 11:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - 21 non-wiki ghits. Unverifiable. MER-C 11:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom and above comments. Chris Kreider 11:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If one ignores and boldly excises the blatant product advertising in the first three and last sections, the remainder of this article, containing substantial content and references on the subject of diseases of laboratory rodents, would make a good start to an article on diseases of laboratory rats and mice, which can be a sub-article of brown rat and House mouse and can be formatted analogously to diseases of the honey bee. No deletion is thus required. Uncle G 12:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is SPAM, and it would require a substantial re-write to turn the article into something other than an advertisement. In fact, doesn't that reflect the exact criteria for a speedy delete? OfficeGirl 22:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nolo contendere, this is a product. But the author has gone to the trouble of: a) citing alternatives even if no similar product is available, and b) provided peer reviewed scientific references. Edit if you are capable. Do not delete.User:drvibe 18:15, 13 November 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Vsundar (talk • contribs) 23:50, 13 November 2006, creator of the article being discussed (see history here) FYI OfficeGirl 01:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, all that is present in the article is the same that you would see accompanying advertisements for a drug, such as the accompanying full page of small print text that comes with an ad for a new birth control patch or low-dose pill, etc. "Edit if you are capable"-- requires some scientific knowledge and a COMPLETE re-write.  Is anyone ready, willing and able to do such a complete re-write?  And just because there is a portion of scientific information included in the article, does that justify an article blatantly promoting a brand-name product by the brand-name?  The name of this article is a commercial product, which might not even be a notable commercial product.  OfficeGirl 00:58, 14 November 2006 (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.