Talk:Cypher stent

Notability

I am writing to express my concerns about the notability of the Cypher stent article. We, the Wikipeida editors, strive to maintain high standards for the inclusion of topics on Wikipedia, and I have reasons to suppose that the Cypher stent may not meet these criteria. The article lacks comparison with alternatives, meaning that when discussing the Cypher stent, we should compare it with other drug-eluting stents; if there was evidence that it outperforms or underperforms relative to its competitors, it should have been given, but if the sales stopped entirely in 2011 and did not resume, what is the point of this article? Can the content be merged with other articles? Is it worth keeping? Notariety should be permanent, not temporary. Does wikipedia have similar articles for the other, competing products? If not, why not? A neutral perspective would provide context by mentioning alternative stents and their respective merits or drawbacks as of the past and as of the current. What is the context of the Cypher stent in the past and now? We should also ensure verifiable claims, meaning that neutrality extends to verifiability: any claims made in the article should be supported by reliable, independent sources; if we cannot find such sources, we should be cautious about including unverified information; however, we only had FDA approval document and a press release, is it the only source? We didn't cite reputable studies, clinical trials, or expert opinions. In light of the above points, I propose that we reevaluate the Cypher stent article. If additional reliable sources can be found, we can enhance its notability. Otherwise, we may need to consider merging, redirecting, or even deleting the article. I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to further discussion. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)