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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CortiQ[edit]

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

Promotional and indulging through use of terms such as "uses state-of-the-art electrocorticographic (ECoG) technologies" and "long history of developing sophisticated yet easy to use", whilst "world’s only commercially available" just seems like typical unsubstantiated marketing. The subject matter that the program relates to may well justify an article (if it doesn't already have one), but I see no reason for why what is essentially an advert for a product should have its own article. Page views are negligable and you can't be sure if even those are from editors being directed from the multiple issue tags. Google search, whilst returning results, doesn't establish notability for the product. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reply: I originally wrote this page. I wasn't paid for doing so in any way, and was motivated purely by my (now greatly reduced) desire to improve public understanding of new technologies for improved neurosurgery via Wikipedia. I work with scientists who use this system. As to its impact and relevance, a page I wrote in 2015 is now widely described in peer-reviewed publications, including the recent interesting and impactful "facephenes and rainbows" study from Schalk, Kanwisher and colleagues, which used cortiQ. (I wasn't involved in this study either; in an ideal Wiki-world, whether the two "i" adjectives I just used are fitting should be judged by experts in neurosurgical devices rather than Wikipedia policies.) I was planning on adding additional material about new applications for brain surgery and cognitive neuroscience, and other recent articles from different groups, as well as linking it to the BCI Society and BCI Meeting pages I tried to create a few months ago.

All of the statements presented in quotes above are correct, substantiable, and written by an unpaid scientist who has no marketing background. The peer-reviewed papers that I included were objective and appropriate. Before writing the article, I reviewed other examples of pages about products, including products from other companies that make real-time neuroimaging systems (also to confirm my true statement that it's the only commercially available system) and others such as NVidia graphics cards. I have reviewed Wikipedia policies relating to commercial contributions many times over several years, which change a lot, are inconsistently enforced, and go too far in the trade-off between nitpickery and content. The people with the most specialized knowledge, and those most active in scientific research, are also those who can potentially provide otherwise unavailable and ground-breaking content. We also have the least time for this.

I do not wish to contribute further to this page or discussion.

Brendan Allison, PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bzallison (talk • contribs) 22:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so you work for the company that developed this tool. We request that sort of stuff to be disclosed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The quotes are opinionated with a suggested bias angle to them. There is nothing really I can find to suggest some notability that would have made a cleanup worthwhile. The page views suggest noone is searching for this anyway. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Dr Allison above makes some valid points, which generally seem to check out. I also can't see what harm the article does if very few people read it, there are many articles that are basically never read, but we don't delete them for that reason. This is undoubtedly a very specialist product system, but there is no problem with that, there are very limited sources, but I am inclined to say that is fine for what it is. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this is true. Sources are too poor. There is not a single review on the topic in pubmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Merge If the promotional tone was cleaned up I think the content could be merged with redirect to Cortical stimulation mapping. My rationale is based on PMID 24111197 which although is a primary source, would support the notion that CSM requires harware/software interface. CV9933 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Searching Proquest, only one article "Brain Diseases; Studies from Florida Hospital Add New Findings in the Area of Epilepsy (CortiQ-based Real-Time Functional Mapping for Epilepsy Surgery") Medical Devices & Surgical Technology Week; Atlanta [Atlanta]06 Mar 2016: 816 Searching Scopus (one of the main UNi journal databases for science, there is only two mentions (including the one above). Psyc info on OVID has no hits - So really, only two journal articles mentioning it - needs more substantial RS than this. Could be that it is new tech and it is TOOSOON. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2018 (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.