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. Disregarding the two last opinions for making no policy-based argument. Sandstein 07:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tallstick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This piece of medical equipment does not seem to be notable. The two papers cited in the article are the only references to this device that I could find, and they were written by the inventors, so they are not independent sources. The papers have 10 and 4 citations on Google Scholar, respectively. The article was written by a blocked UPE sock in what seems to be an attempt to promote Mirette Seireg, who might be notable (I haven't looked too far into it), but this device is not. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, only two mentions of this device exist, both by the inventors like the nominator mentions. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep The tallstick would appear to be a valuable tool in the field of Positive Deviance. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2019 (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.