Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AlloMap Molecular Expression Testing

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 NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC) keep. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AlloMap Molecular Expression Testing

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

Specialised medical test. No evidence of its notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added another reference. As a whole, the referencing should be improved, but as it stands, it is good enough to justify this article. The article also needs extensive clean-up to reduce to technical jargon. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequate evidence of important use in its niche; the NEJM article is sufficient for notability, along with the others a& a few more to be found in PubMed--even though the NEJM study was financed by the company owning the product. More generally, a product that is accepted by the NIH as a diagnostic test should be considered notable enough for an article. But the present article is outrageously promotional: the key to that is the excessive use of the product name, which is really remarkable: the author managed to get the name into 20 of the 26 sentences in the article. I have noticed that articles written like this frequently get nominated for deletion & sometimes deleted even though they might have some notability --this sort of writing is counterproductive here. If kept, I'll do the necessary rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 13 September 2010 (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.