Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady-Comp - Wikipedia

Article Images

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. Davewild (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, probable promotion Mnnlaxer (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I didn't WP:PROD this article is the almost certain objection from someone who is promoting this project ~~would object~~. User:BiH is the creator and sole (positive) contributor to the article. The non-notability of Lady-Comp is fairly obvious, as is the fact this article was created for promotional purposes. While there are many hits for Google News searches, they are all PR or blogs. RS for this product will be very hard to find. The Daily Mail article that is the only source right now is likely a paid promotion or at least a conflict of interest. Even if the DM is called a RS in this case, it the sole RS that the article's promoters have found. It is not likely there are others. Note that the fact the device had clinical trials does not make the device notable. Should be obvious, but I'll say it anyway, all medical devices have clinical trials before they are sold in most countries. Mnnlaxer (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:BiH (contributions), the creator and sole contributor to this article, has declared a relationship to the subject. See Talk:Lady-Comp and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mnnlaxer (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most sources I could find are press releases. The ones that are reliable do not conform extensive coverage. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 5 hits of HighBeam Research, enough to pass WP:GNG in my opinion. --BiH (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of those five Highbeam hits is a Pink Lady Comp[etition], a kimono giveaway contest; one is a routine trademark issuance; and the other is this press release. Brianhe (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources found; The New York Observer ("The Orgasmatron Finally Shows Up: High-Tech Rhythm" referenced by BiH above) and The Daily Mail ("The fertility computer 'as good as the Pill'" currently referenced in the article) are unsuitable WP:MEDPOP sources. Further, they are both from 2004. Surely if this was notable, at least something in pop press would have appeared since then. — Brianhe (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam, and non-notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In light of this FDA enforcement letter it would be reasonable to conclude that "someone" is paying to have Lady-Comp promoted as a medical device on Wikipedia. I am not a lawyer but maybe this would be a violation of U.S. law and therefore a violation of WP's TOS. — Brianhe (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:BiH has just disclosed themself as having a COI (suspected paid editing, see WP:COIN). Joseph2302 (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found the FDA letter to be the most notable thing about it. Although the "cease and desist" from the FDA would make an interesting addition to the article, I don't see it as enough to keep an article carrying known misinformation around. LaMona (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:42. Zad68 14:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.