Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SureClick

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SureClick

Completion of incomplete nomination. No rationale given by nominator. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that; I lost my connection while Twinkle was doing its magic. Here's what the rationale was supposed to be:

It's not quite clear just what the article is about. It starts off as being about a medical device currently on the market. Later, there's a discussion of how the device would be classified compared to alternatives but then says it doesn't need to be classified.

Footnote 6 follows a paragraph; if you click through to that link, it appears that almost the entire paragraph was lifted from that source. That's not the only example like that.

"Feasibility study," "Design Prototyping," and "Design validation and transfer" are all "under construction"? While everything in WP is permanently under construction, that statement, repeated several times in this article, gives it the appearance of one person's half-done essay.

The entire "Product design and development" section doesn't appear to be about the same topic at all. The name "SureClick" is only used once in this entire section, and briefly at that.

And so on, and so on, through a section about FDA manufacturing requirements and testing procedures that also contains "under construction" sections, plus sections on clean room equipment and personnel.

And then there are customer complaints about the product, all of which have come from bulletin boards (per the cites--some of the very few citations in this article). This is followed by a lengthy section on Amgen's complaint handling procedures and the FDA requirements. At this point, it should be no surprise that the "Further reading" section consists entirely of works by Amgen scientists.

There may or may not be a good article buried in this. I can't tell. But the article, as it stands now, is either too vague about its focus or it's written so deeply in jargon that an interested reader can't even tell what it's on. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 02:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating:

This has the same mix of different articles all jumbled together, none of it complete, and at least some of it copyvio (from here and here, in this example). The article starts off about one thing, veers into other topics, and crashes and burns at:

...con't under development (hd)...sep 5: (variables/loops/branches); Objects; Data types; notation/syntax; methods; relation to other high level languages such as C++ (both derived from); namesspaces; exception/event handling.

Some of it is word for word the same as Design controls. And yes, these are all from the same editor. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rewrite There are several articles buried here. The main use of this is to add content to he article on Autoinjectors, a long-established medical device. The second one would be this specific brand or type--I have not yet quite figured out which. The specific drugs injected by them belong in separate articles. The material on the conditions for their testing and how to sell them may not be of sufficient interest for a general encyclopedia. They read like they were copied from some product manual. DGG (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably mention that along with nominating these two for AFD, of the editor's other articles, I've put Eutectic bonding process, Glide SDI, Humira Pen, Parallel gap welding, Pegintron Redipen, Silver epoxy, and Thermosonic bonding all up for CSD G12 (copyvio). At the moment, I personally wouldn't trust anything he's written to be his own words, and so, I don't think we should use even selections from these articles towards building a GFDL encyclopedia. But that's my 2¢. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice toward recreation. The present articles are enough of a mess to require a fundemental rewrite to produce an encyclopedic article. Adding to that the known copyright issues and there is nothing to save. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Withholding judgement~~: I've removed all the things that have only tangential references to the subject. These include 90% of the text, as there were entire FDA regulation texts and manuals on product testing and complaint processes. I can only hope that these were copyvio, cause otherwise the writer has real issues. I'll now try to find some third part sources, and ensure what's left is not copied from the web. T L Miles (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've done what I can do: basically removed most of the article, checked what remains vs google and found no copyvio, rewrote some in a more neutral tone, and I provided a couple of independent references. The fact that one version of the product was recalled in Europe (a fact not mentioned in the previous incarnation) makes it notable. T L Miles (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the comprehensive nomination. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Are there any problems mentioned which are still in the article? Most of the article was deleted, so I see no problems now with what's left. I say keep both, and discuss any problems in the talk page, tagging things when necessary, and working through like that. Article deletion should be done as a last resort. Dream Focus 05:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments My current thoughts:

T L Miles has done a great job of turning a sow's ear into a silk purse on SureClick. Thanks!
Given that SureClick is a near-orphan, I'm still not entirely sure it's actually notable enough for an article. It's short enough now that I think what's there could just be merged into Autoinjector.
This AFD is for two articles, not just one. Should the Automated Tissue Image Systems AFD be split out? That article is still a trainwreck, and so needs either similar treatment or deletion. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:12, 19 March 2009 (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.