Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musely

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Musely

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Tagged since August 2015 as an advert, and despite my own AFC acceptance (participants should note that acceptance criteria allow borderline drafts to be accepted) in May 2014, this has degraded into WP:ADMASQ. Searches reveal nothing significant about it. Fails WP:NCORP. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Internet. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and United States of America. AllyD (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It does seem to be the October 2022 edits by now-blocked Musely FaceRx that made the article unacceptably promotional; it could be worth reverting to the prior version or at least basing consideration of notability on that version? AllyD (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AllyD Your comment is sound, and yet, if we do that, we have an article that is still degraded, even from the AFC acceptance. It seems invidious to take it all the way back to what might be argued to be a reasonable version. Remember, it was a borderline acceptance then. Since all that has happened appears to me to have been negative improvement, I think the nomination should stand, perhaps factored by this comment. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The term appears to be a word in Hungarian(?), plenty of hits there. I don't find any peer-reviewed medical journals discussing it, nor any sort of discussion at all. This is promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 26 January 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.