Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stem cell educator (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus is that the article should be deleted due to a lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Stem cell educator
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:Golden rule - insufficient independent sources to show notability, even with the two and a half years since the last AfD Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * don't know why it is not listing the prior AfD, which is here. sorry. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC) (fixed by Wikimandia here - thanks Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Snow keep - not sure why you're relisting an article that was a snow keep long ago. Stem cell educator therapy is significant. This is the theorized process behind how stem cells "work."  —Мандичка YO 😜 18:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * that is not true. here is a pubmed search for reviews on this device (the WP article under discussion is about the device not about "how stem cells work"). there is one review by the people who are developing it - which fails WP:Golden rule.  And that is even with two and a half years having gone by.  Nobody else in the field is picking this up.  This article is just non-NOTABLE WP:PROMO for an obscure medical device. Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, previous snow keep. I'd have no issue with renaming the article stem cell educator therapy if you feel the current title restricts the article to being about the specific device rather than the treatment. Link you posted to study stated research topic is "Reversal of Type 1 Diabetes in Children by Stem Cell Educator Therapy." The first trial received coverage in mass media and experts don't consider it "non-NOTABLE." —Мандичка YO 😜 01:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The previous snow keep was wrong, in my view. I understand you want to keep this.  Let's see what others have to say. (by the way, most of my editing is in health related articles.  I am not sure what you mean about "experts"... )  Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no strong opinion about keeping the article except I see it meets GNG. The expert in question was the one quoted in the article, who is a RS not affiliated with the trials: ("It's quite remarkable that this approach, based on the re-education of immune cells, might work so well. The concept is very intriguing, and the treatment seems to be so simple and so safe," said Dr. Luca Inverardi, deputy director of translational research at the Diabetes Research Institute, University of Miami School of Medicine). Don't see how it's non-notable considering this has led to further studies that are ongoing; it's not like this was a theory that went bust and was abandoned. We must go with what the RS say. —Мандичка YO 😜 20:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There are no independent secondary sources about this that meet WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: In isolation, this AfD is a slam-dunk for deletion, but I'm puzzled how this and the previous AfD could come to such diametrically opposed conclusions. Possibly I'm being silly, but I'm going to let this run for another week. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * delete --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet notability guidelines due to a lack of independent secondary sources with respect to the device. The only two sources in the article at this time are not adequate for notability. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sounds clever, nil sources to suggest that it's been studied properly. JFW &#124; T@lk  20:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Diabetes_mellitus_type_1. Maybe enough for a single sentence on it there since it has gotten popular press. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I would like to have articles about things like this so that readers have a source of good information about them, but without reliable sources it is impossible to have a high-quality article. Looie496 (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * When I saw this article and its sources and looked for further sources, it was clear to me as someone who regularly works on drug and device content, that it fails NOTABILITY.  I looked at contribs of those who commented in the 1st AfD and none of them regularly contribute to health-related articles and it seemed pretty clear to me that a 2nd AfD would lead to deletion.... So I nominated and  posted neutral notice of this AfD at WT:MED -- here -- and indeed, experienced medical editors are voting !delete. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2015 (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.