Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zerona

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zerona

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

The article is written as a promotional piece that uses original research, and the medical sources appear to be inappropriately used. There is very little coverage of this device in the media or reliable information about it. Delta13C (talk) 06:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TNT with extra dynamite. My god. How has this extension of Erchonia's website into WP survived since 2011? Jytdog (talk) 06:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are two questions to answer here: first, is this a notable topic; second, is this article so irredeemably noncompliant that we would be better off without it. The answer to the former is: marginal. There is some discussion in the popular press, but virtually none in the specialist medical press. Most of the coverage has a strong appearance of churnalism. As a case for notability it is weak, to say the least. The answer to the latter is: absolutely. The content of the article, give or take stylistic fixes, was written entirely by one WP:SPA whose username strongly suggests that he is an individual prominently associated with promoting the device. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom and above - David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO with a dose of WP:TNT; purely promotional drivel. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom; not notable and promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, couldn't agree more with all the reasons stated above. --Daffydavid (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2016 (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.