- 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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Resperate
- Resperate ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advert with cherry-picked citations from obscure publications. Orange Mike | Talk 02:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm a little worried about the journal publications, as it's very common for companies to pay for people to perform research upon the product. Until we can verify that the Resperate company didn't pay for the research, I'd kind of automatically assume that they're suspect and unusable. It doesn't mean that they can't be genuine non-paid for sources, but when you get to "new" stuff like this it's more likely that they're unusable. Most times it takes a long while to gain coverage in PR journals. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment With regard to sources, American Journal of Hypertension is an Oxford journal, The Journal of Clinical Hypertension is a Wiley journal and Journal of Human Hypertension is a Nature journal. These are all reputable journals based on peer review and look notable in their own right. I'm not willing to second-guess the peer review process and assume all of these pubs are inherently biased. On the other hand for a medical article, WP:MEDRS applies and strongly recommends an article based on secondary sources Most of these papers look primary. The Sun-Times and Wired article are secondary, but again WP:MEDRS recommends against relying on popular press sources for medical content. There is some criticism about the trials and a rebuttal. -- Mark viking ( talk) 03:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- That's what I'm worried about as well, that these are primary sources that are paid for by the company itself. I've moved the original sources to the talk page until they can be verified. At first glance there does seem to be coverage, but at this point it's just weeding through them to see which are primary and which aren't. As far as the PP sources, those I'm more listing to show that there has been some widespread coverage in general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- This source shows that as of 2007 there were 8 studies but only one wasn't manufacturer sponsored. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to say Delete because the device does not appear to have widespread recognition and also because of the exaggerated nature of the claims in the article. For example, the article says The American Heart Association has recommended Resperate as a "reasonable option to support lowering BP", but the linked paper does not actually "recommend" the device; the Summary and Clinical Recommendations section about Respirate says that Device-guided breathing is reasonable to perform in clinical practice to reduce BP and that further study is needed, which IMO is a far cry from a recommendation. The FDA clearance was under a process which finds the device to be "substantially equivalent" to already approved devices, which does not suggest that this particular device is unique enough to deserve an article of its own. Is there a reasonable redirect target? All I could think of as a target was Biofeedback which is probably too general. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC ( talk) 08:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Resperate
- Resperate ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advert with cherry-picked citations from obscure publications. Orange Mike | Talk 02:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm a little worried about the journal publications, as it's very common for companies to pay for people to perform research upon the product. Until we can verify that the Resperate company didn't pay for the research, I'd kind of automatically assume that they're suspect and unusable. It doesn't mean that they can't be genuine non-paid for sources, but when you get to "new" stuff like this it's more likely that they're unusable. Most times it takes a long while to gain coverage in PR journals. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment With regard to sources, American Journal of Hypertension is an Oxford journal, The Journal of Clinical Hypertension is a Wiley journal and Journal of Human Hypertension is a Nature journal. These are all reputable journals based on peer review and look notable in their own right. I'm not willing to second-guess the peer review process and assume all of these pubs are inherently biased. On the other hand for a medical article, WP:MEDRS applies and strongly recommends an article based on secondary sources Most of these papers look primary. The Sun-Times and Wired article are secondary, but again WP:MEDRS recommends against relying on popular press sources for medical content. There is some criticism about the trials and a rebuttal. -- Mark viking ( talk) 03:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- That's what I'm worried about as well, that these are primary sources that are paid for by the company itself. I've moved the original sources to the talk page until they can be verified. At first glance there does seem to be coverage, but at this point it's just weeding through them to see which are primary and which aren't. As far as the PP sources, those I'm more listing to show that there has been some widespread coverage in general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- This source shows that as of 2007 there were 8 studies but only one wasn't manufacturer sponsored. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to say Delete because the device does not appear to have widespread recognition and also because of the exaggerated nature of the claims in the article. For example, the article says The American Heart Association has recommended Resperate as a "reasonable option to support lowering BP", but the linked paper does not actually "recommend" the device; the Summary and Clinical Recommendations section about Respirate says that Device-guided breathing is reasonable to perform in clinical practice to reduce BP and that further study is needed, which IMO is a far cry from a recommendation. The FDA clearance was under a process which finds the device to be "substantially equivalent" to already approved devices, which does not suggest that this particular device is unique enough to deserve an article of its own. Is there a reasonable redirect target? All I could think of as a target was Biofeedback which is probably too general. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC ( talk) 08:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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.