Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SteatoTest

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SteatoTest

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This was spam from the day it was created here, which was literally with a spam link and nothing else. Since then it has been sourced only to the company's website, and some wikilinks were spammed around WP. I speedied it and Eastmain threw in some shitty primary sources they found to "save" it and removed the speedy tag. Shit stuck on shit is still shit. In fact it is shittier.

The shit sources are:

PMID 16375767 - primary source, and if you read the competing interests section, it says "Thierry is the inventor of both the FT and the ST, is a consultant and has a capital interest in Biopredictive, the company marketing FibroTest-SteatoTest. Mona Munteanu is employee of Biopredictive, the company marketing FibroTest-SteatoTest." The journal in which it was published was discontinued in 2012.
PMID 27549244 - another primary source, again by the company: "TP is the inventor of FibroTest/SteatoTest and the founder of BioPredictive, the company that markets these tests. Patents belong to the French Public Organization Assistance Publique‐Hôpitaux de Paris (APHP). MM, YN, OD are BioPredictive employees. Others co‐authors have no conflict of interest."
Next we have a churnalism ref from a press release about the primary source just above.
Next is PMID 22431959, big shocker, another primary source from Thierry et al.

So delete this now shittier shit. Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found three sources that AFAICT aren't primary in the sense of being by authors affiliated with the test or the company that makes it. They are however primary sources in the sense of not meeting WP:MEDRS, but maybe they can establish notability. The sources are: [1] [2] [3] IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 04:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A publication in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal is a reliable source, despite the conflict of interest. This is a legitimate news story, not a reprint of a press release. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the healio ref is blatant churnalism; zero independent reporting - just PR for the company. here is another website picking up the same press release.Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And independent sources are required for notability. Sources authored by company scientists are not completely independent. This is Notability 101 stuff. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable, secondary sources that discuss this company or technique. Pure spammy BS. Valeince (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of secondary or independant sources, plus the spam nature of this article makes this a delete for me. The closest thing to secondary sources i saw was the kind of sources that IntoThinAir pointed out but they are still primary in nature and as cited in WP:MEDRS Other sources section, falls short of meeting the requirements. JC7V-constructive zone 05:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Fatty liver#Diagnosis. The fact that there are published papers in reliable medical journals suggests that this isn't a clean delete, but rather can be added to the Fatty liver article, which is redirected to from Hepatic steatosis. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after striking redirect vote - the independence of the published papers has been called into question. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and the closer should completely disregard Eastmain's argument as having no policy or guideline basis. We require independent sourcing: none of that exists as pointed out by Jytdog. Merging spam also makes no sense, which means it is not a reasonable alternative to deletion, as after we merge it we'd just have to remove it again. Deletion is the only outcome supported by our policies here (i.e. WP:NOT and WP:DEL.) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. and do not merge or redirect. pure promotionalism -- the only refs are exactly the sort of primary sources deprecated by MEDRS. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 6 August 2018 (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.