Talk:Oncotype DX Colon Cancer Assay

COI declaration from User:GHI MSM

User:GHI MSM, who wrote 82% of this page, declared a conflict of interest here. [1] Their full disclosure is below:

I am an employee of Genomic Health and Oncotype DX Colon Cancer Assay is our product. However, we have taken great care to write this article to be neutral in tone. We have followed all of the guidelines given regarding citations and non-promotion. This is my full disclosure statement

Toadspike (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

PROD/AfD

@Acebulf @Kvng The outcome of the RfD discussion that restored this article was "Restore without prejudice to AfD", which it should have been immediately nominated at AfD. Acebulf, in an edit summary, seems to indicate that this now meets the GNG, and Kvng contested a PROD. Is there consensus to skip AfD? I've looked through the first four sources and none mention "Oncotype DX Colon Cancer Assay" – most mention a breast cancer assay and one doesn't mention either. I will keep looking but if you could please provide the WP:THREE you found, that would save some time. Toadspike (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Some points: "Restore without prejudice to AfD" does not indicate it should have been immediately nominated at AfD. Acebulf in the edit summary talked about GNG for Oncotype DX, and not Oncotype DX Colon Cancer Assay. I had seen Kvng's Deletion contested, not an uncotroversial deletion two days back, and didn't really understand what it meant, but preferred the PRODer to pitch in. Did it mean Kvng is contesting the deletion (and is there a reason?) or the PROD is no longer valid as it was contested (by someone else)? Jay 💬 10:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You're right, it seems I misunderstood "Restore without prejudice to AfD". However, I would like to hear from Acebulf and Kvng, especially the latter, because they have both indicated that deletion is not needed. Toadspike (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a position on whether this should be deleted. I have not done any WP:BEFORE searches or evaluation of cited sources. The reason Acebulf gave in their prod was Advertisement. Former BLAR, reinstated as conclusion of an RfD. Based on that description, the justification for my deprod was that this did not appear to be a simple, uncontroversial deletion that prod is intended for. ~Kvng (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any solid sourcing that would meet GNG for this, but an argument could be made for the Oncotype DX series of test as a whole. That page is salted. Even if that's the solution, I think it's best to start over because this one is an outdated advertisement. I removed the "no GNG" part of the prod for that reason. Kvng's assessment is fair. No objection to AfD. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the subject matter, but searching for the title on Google Scholar quickly turned up multiple results from academic papers with the name in the title, themselves cited a few dozen times: [2], [3], [4] _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help. I think this article needs to be stubified or TNTed, but I do not have the capacity to take that on right now (determine what is relevant to keep and what is too much advertising). Toadspike (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)