Chi Machine : While the product definitely exists, it does not appear to be the subject of sufficient independent sigcov to pass WP:GNG .  Previous deletion discussion was 18 years ago, and did not contain much reference to WP policies.  Jdcooper ( talk ) 12:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Products ,  and Japan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It's sourced to three journals, they seem ok.  What's our issue with them?  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They seem to be about the science behind this commercial product, rather than the product itself (except one).  Jdcooper ( talk ) 19:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep :  I think with the peer-reviewed journals, we're at least at notability.  Better than some PR pieces we see here for other products.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The last journal article cited does not mention the product at all – it is actually is a note from the editorial team of the journal stating that, with respect to the first article cited, exuberance in reporting is evident along with some "cherry-picking" of the data (i.e., underemphasis of non-supporting data), non-parametic statistical analysis, or even a lack of statistically analyzed data.  , and that with respect to the article being published in their journal at all: Whereas Lymphology's main focus is to publish original, scientifically sound, evidence-based articles of interest to our readers, we recognize both the explosion of alternative/complementary treatment modalities used by patients and prescribed by physicians and other heath care practitioners worldwide and also the importance of informing and stimulating lymphologists and related specialists to examine and reflect on these practices.  Based on this editorial I will assume that the first article cited is unreliable and not discuss it further.  The second article (notably by the same authors as the first) is a primary source and so should generally not be used as a basis for biomedical content per WP:MEDRS – there are no remaining sources with which to support a claim to notability present in the article, and I cannot find any in my own search, so it does not appear the article meets GNG.  I would always err on the side of removal of biomedical content which is poorly sourced anyways as it has the potential for actual harm – with the only substantive content in the article being poorly sourced removing it would leave the article with no useful information.  Courtesy ping for Oaktree b , who appears to have based his reasoning on the assumption that the articles were reliable.  Tollens ( talk ) 04:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : We have only one source, and as laid out above, it appears to be unreliable, and the article possibly even promotional.  Cortador ( talk ) 09:47, 14 November 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete