Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulsatile flow generator


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Pulsatile flow generator

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The scope of the article should be general, but the content is entirely focused on the properties of one such pulsatile flow generator
 * The tone is far from being neutral (likely written with conflict of interest)
 * The only two references provided are unlikely to describe the topic in a neutral light ("pilot study", "Novel Concept") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariadacapo (talk • contribs)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * delete per WP:TNT As the nom says, this is a general class of devices (the feds say so), and what we have here is an article hawking one particular design. I'm not even sure the thing is notable on its own, but at any rate the current article is hopelessly promotional. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep without prejudice - I agree with all the problems identified here but it is possible to improve things. Usually we add some tags and wait to see what happens before rushing to delete. I have added some tags based on the discussion here. There are not yet any incoming links so this is off on a corner on its own and won't likely embarrass anyone while it is improved. ~Kvng (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 17:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, inappropriate and promotional tone, making the content and references suspect.  Sandstein   10:21, 28 September 2017 (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.