Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carpal Rx

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 - Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carpal Rx

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

No decentsources provided and is making medical claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This source [1] is not pubmed indexed and is not really a proper secondary source. They basically took the results of CTRS and compared them to "therapeutic massage data obtained in a single-blind prospective investigation of 36 patients who received daily mechanized therapeutic massage of the forearm for 90 days" There appears to have been no control group. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and allow time for article to be improved. I don't accept that the article is making medical claims - it merely informs us that the device is available. The "claims" are qualified, e.g. "designed for treating" not "treating" and "claims to reduce" not "reduces". Biscuittin (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a "delete" vote for the current version of the article. If an improved version of the article ever does appear, including references to reliable, independent sources providing substantial coverage of this topic, then we should revisit. But it is the current version of the article that is being discussed. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The non-secondary source mentioned is British - is there a British or European equivalent of PubMed? Peter James (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pubmed has both British and non British sources in it. It is typically only very poor quality stuff that is not indexed in pubmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is the National Health Service site Journals and Databases. --Bejnar (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete verifiable, but not notable. Fails WP:GNG. Basically Wikipedia:Too soon. Give it three to five years and you might have something. Wikipedia is not a directory of medical devices. --Bejnar (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two refs, one to the firm's website, and one to something called the British Journal of Pain of a study purportedly carried out by employees of company. Searches yield various non-RS hits of the "does this thing actually work?" variety. Zero substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot one other thing--Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2014 (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.