Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prosorba column


 * 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. John254 00:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Prosorba column

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Disputed prod (from a user who removed all the prods I had listed). Nonnotable and now defunct product with no third party reliable sources. Also orphaned. BrooklynBarber (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added a third party reliable source when I removed the prod tag, and, as I said in the edit summary at that time, there are loads more sources available from a Google Books search. There are even more found by a Google Scholar search. I would also add that the product being defunct and the article being orphaned are in no way reasons for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to be a valid stub with an independent third-party source.  Powers T 20:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   —Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Never had much of an impact and joins a collection of little-used therapeutics that will not have made enough impact to make medical history. JFW | T@lk  21:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It demonstrably has made it into medical history, given that it is documented in books such as Ponisseril Somasundaran's Encyclopedia of Surface and Colloid Science (CRC Press, 2006, ISBN 9780849396038, pp. 4688–4692), which records the history of the device. There's plenty of documentation of it under its formal name of protein a immunoadsorption column, too.  This is an encyclopaedia of what has been noted by the world at large, not a collection of what whichever Wikipedia editors happen to be around at the time themselves think is famous or important.  Your arguments about how widely used the device is, or how groundbreaking the device is have zero basis in our policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then should this article be moved to the generic name instead of the brand name? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Uncle G, Phil Bridger. Sources clearly exist. Edward321 (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as borderline notable. Eusebeus (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2008 (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.