Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nasopharyngeal Stent

:{{la|Nasopharyngeal Stent}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nasopharyngeal_Stent Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Nasopharyngeal Stent}})

This fails WP:N.

After doing a search, found one article/research paper dated 2015. [https://nastent.sevendreamers.com/wp/wp-content/themes/fc357/data/journal_of_sleep_disorders_and_therapy.pdf]

The page was poorly created, with no sources, and worded like an essay rather than a Wikipedia article.
lbmarshall (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

:*Keep A very untidy article, but it should clean up okay. CV9933 (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. A lack of wikilinks and weird formatting in a substantial text is generally a sign of copyvio. If someone has access to the mentioned paper, could you please check if that is the case? --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

::Nvm checking; I had not noticed it is already a direct link to the pdf. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect to nasopharyngeal airway. I think it is about the same thing, but without a properly sourced description of the stent, I am not completely sure. That said, the stent article seems to focus more on what its advantages are, instead of describing what it actually is. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
• delete. This was a translation of a section of a German article; see [https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schlafapnoe-Syndrom#Nasopharyngealer_Stent here]. If you look at the refs in that section, they are poor quality refs from the company that is developing this. If you search for reviews in pubmed like [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22Nasopharyngeal%20Stent%22%5BAll%20Fields%5D%20AND%20Review%5Bptyp%5D&cmd=DetailsSearch this], you find no MEDRS refs. WP:TOOSOON/spam. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. My initial consideration was this [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25544266 pmid] and also veterinary nasopharyngeal stenosis applications.CV9933 (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as unsourced and only consisting of a few paragraphs, it's not the substance for an encyclopedia, and the one Keep simply says "needs tidying". When someone can both substantiate and tidy, then we have better chances but there's currently not the at least basic improvements. SwisterTwister talk 20:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.