Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-on-4


 * 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   no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

All-on-4

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable treatment. Mentioned in the news a couple of times but nothing that seems to be reliable or objective. Article in its current form is highly promotional and fails WP:NPRODUCT along with WP:SIGCOV. &mdash; kikichugirl  speak up! 04:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * And why instead of deleting other people's work, can't you propose the improvement of the article? This is a very well known method. Google returns more than 500 thousand results on the exact term, Google news UK returns more than 2700 news/articles, and Google books return almost 5000 entries on the exact term, how can you say it is not notable?João Pimentel Ferreira 02:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joao.pimentel.ferreira (talk • contribs)
 * See WP:BURDEN. If you can improve it, please do so, instead of accusing me of being a person who deletes other people's work - unless you're the author of this article? Anyway, if I see improvements, please feel free to ping me and I'll be happy to withdraw the nom. &mdash; kikichugirl  speak up! 05:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * See also WP:GOOGLEHITS. The number of Google hits for something is not an indication of notability; WP:GNG requires significant coverage, not just random pages that happen to mention something.  The links have more information.   ekips 39 05:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I was almost the author of the article, and you could have tagged it differently instead of proposing a deletion, that was only my concern. Some issues were added later on the article such as the "advantages" of the method. I already deleted that paragraph. I also deleted all mentions to trademarks or registered marks to avoid the article to be seen as propaganda. Google might not be a reference, but what about Google books with almost 5000 entries? And this term is not random, it refers specifically to this method. João Pimentel Ferreira 15:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joao.pimentel.ferreira (talk • contribs)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 05:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep sources in reliable sources demonstrate sufficient notability. -- Scray (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll improve the sources. Thank you. João Pimentel Ferreira 12:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Now seems "better"

 * I removed all the trademark issues.
 * I removed all the sentences tagged as
 * I removed the topic "advantages"
 * I added independent and reliable sources. Pubmed, one of the main medical publishers in the world, has 39 entries for this treatment.

Thank you. João Pimentel Ferreira 17:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC).
 * 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.