 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Contested deletion
editThis page is not unambiguously promotional, because I am just describing the company there is not even a link pointing to the company website. Its only description, do not get the point if I compare the page to other company. I am a new member ad try to understand the rules... but here I dont get them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz101085 (talk • contribs)
- @Franz101085: I have responded as well on my talk page: the language of this article is highly promotional (terms such as "translating science into medicine" (oh, and by the way, medicine is already a science) and "a reference for precision medicine in oncology" are not meaningful neutral language, but rather promotional terms. Also, references should be used to actually verify the facts they reference, not just as an opportunity to link to more press releases and advertorials by and about the company. The entire article reads like an attempt to boost OncoDNA's online reputation with the "prestige" of a Wikipedia page rather than an effort to truly write a neutral informative article about the company. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Unsourced
editPer WP:PRESERVE moving here. Do not add this back with a source that supports it per WP:VERIFY
In May 2016, the company launched 'OncoDEEP&TRACE', a diagnostic assay combining both solid and liquid biopsy analyses to provide a current picture of the overall tumor mass for a refined stratification of patient's disease in order to help oncologists to choose the most appropriate therapeutic approach for a given cancer patient.[citation needed]
-- Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- So how could I cite/prove this sentence, if scientific papers are not accepted? I guess if there is a link to testimonials from oncologists using the product, it would be as well deleted, as a direct link to the product's website.
- From your point of view, only press releases telling that the product has been launched would be suitable?
- Thank for your help. I am still struggling with the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz101085 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- If a product launch if significant a trade rag in the field (in this case something like Genetic Engineering News) would cover it. Independent sources are best - they tell us what the field thinks is important. Jytdog (talk) 07:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)