Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redsense Medical


 * 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. Tone 15:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Redsense Medical

 * – ( View AfD View log )

is is part of an advertisement for a company making a routine safety device to detect a routine type of accident during dialysis. This part describes the company and its sole product; an already deleted part Articles for deletion/Venous needle dislodgement describes the accident & its potential consequences. The discussion in that AfD explains why the products is inherently trivial, and it is therefore quite unlikely that the company could become notable. Thus, as expected, the references and content here does not meet the standards of WP:NCORP. I presume there is COI, for trying to get 2 articles when there is at most a very weak case for one is a standard promotional trick associated with paid coi editing. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  05:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  05:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Aside from the possible COI editing, the subject of the article has no significant coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete References don't support notability for inclusion. Fails WP:CORDEPTH.   scope_creep Talk  08:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete As per Dom Kaos above. 1292simon (talk) 08:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Failure to pass WP:CORPDEPTH is invoked as an argument for deletion above. According to WP:CORPDEPTH, "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." The examples of sufficent coverage include "A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization". I can't see that the sources provided would not fulfill that - for example (Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017 Feb 7; 12(2): 357–369) and the coverage in Ny Teknik, the weekly Swedish engineering magazine. Still, I have added an additional section with citations detailing Redsense as a case example in international business study to improve it further.

DGG postulates that this is an advertisement and that both the product and the condition it addresses are trivial. I have written the two articles contested here out of an interest for the phenomenon they both relate to. I am not part of the company and my writings here have not been influenced by any company or any representative thereof. The decision to write the article is my own, as is every sentence added in the process. I have strived to represent a neutral point of view and to write objectively and without bias. The product is to date the only FDA cleared product of its kind in the US, based on patented fiber-optic technology, thus hardly trivial per se.

As regards the triviality of the condition, it was suggested in the venous needle dislodgement discussion that the complication is an obvious side effect and thus could not have significance. To me, that is like arguing that cetacean stranding would be an obvious side effect of whales, or that back pain would be an obvious side effect of our evolutionary decision as a species to start to walk upright; whether it could maybe be trivially foreseen as a potential outcome is not an argument for triviality if it is a phenomenon that causes widespread effects, has major implications for society and thus is established within public consciousness or some considerable subset thereof (and, as a consequence and more importantly for the context of this discussion, in referencable sources.)

The references in the venous needle dislodgement article were admittedly inadequate at the time of the AfD for that article as I had not understood the standards of WP:MEDRS, but I did since improve them by providing citations to review articles supporting the claims in the text, such as (Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017 Feb 7; 12(2): 357–369), describing it and its consequences at length and listing it as a "major emergency". These improvements were, however, left unadressed in the context of that discussion.

I claim that the updated sources provided in that article do demonstrate that dislodgement is well established at least within the nephrology public consciousness and that it there is looked upon as a hazard that is worthy of analysis, prevention and consideration - and thus not trivial. (I also, as an aside, note that other complications listed as major emergencies alongside VND in the aforementioned review have WP articles). According to a 2012 review ("Venous needle dislodgement in patients on hemodialysis". Nephrology Nursing Journal. 39 (6): 435–45) more than half of nephrology nurses in the U.S. are concerned about venous needle dislodgement often or very often.

Furthermore, the fact that the normal variation of venous pressure as detected by the hemodialysis machine over the course of a hemodialysis treatment session is of the same magnitude as an acute pressure drop due to a dislodgement incident makes monitoring for it far from a trivial matter, as outlined for example in the review (Polaschegg HD. Venous needle dislodgement: the pitfalls of venous pressure measurement and possible alternatives, a review. J Ren Care. 2010 Mar;36(1):41-8), and the short time from incident to a potentially fatal outcome makes the incident itself more complex than an IV dislodgement in general. (As another aside, the on-going shift from in-clinic to at-home treatment in U.S. hemodialysis also makes this issue likely to become even more notable in the future.) Inapond (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article is written from the company's point of view and does not show the third-party coverage that is required for corporate notability. The article also has tone issues; if the article were trimmed down, not much might be left, and anyway the article does not establish notability.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2020 (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.