Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dental vibration appliance


 * 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 keep. No prejudice to a merger discussion or decision, but the outcome is definitely not delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Dental vibration appliance

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing to show that this is notable for now. A mention in a Cochrane review is enough to merit inclusion in another article, but not an article on its own. Carl Fredrik  💌 📧 15:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep These devices were effectively the subject of the Cochrane review, since the only two studies examined each tried to evaluate one brand of device (per the absract). I think that's enough, even though the conclusions of the review were not very encouraging. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case the article should be expanded somewhat using that source. As it is now it is of little value, if maybe not so little as to delete it. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 23:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. It may not need a stand-alone article. It can be merged to dental braces under a new section titled "Dental vibration appliance" QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Merge & redirect" is probably a good solution. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note. The page says "Dental vibration appliance, sold under the brand name AcceleDent, OrthoAccel, and Tooth Masseuse, are devices which uses "micropulses" to try to speed tooth movement when used with dental braces." This is misleading content if the device is no longer on the market. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 11:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is on the market, and the maker was trying to promote it as recently as Jan 14 by rewriting the article to include "AcceleDent® is an FDA-cleared, Class II medical device...", "clinically proven to speed up orthodontic treatment by as much as 50 percent...", etc. (Now rev-deleted from the article history as a copyright violation, here's a copy of the company's PR release from which it was taken). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Very well. I think it can be mentioned in dental braces. There needs to be more content to justify a stand-alone article IMO. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I could go with that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge. In a few years, it's likely to read something like: 'The dental vibration appliance was a device which was claimed to use "micropulses" to speed tooth movement when used with dental braces. Subsequent research failed to replicate early results, and the device was withdrawn from the market.' At that point, it can be removed from the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes a mention in a Cochrane review definitely supports notability. If stuff makes it into major high quality secondary sources than we are good. We should first clean up all the primary sources. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge. Being the subject of a Cochrane review (not just getting a mention in one) seems like enough for notability. And I think there is sufficient value in the article in that it tells people who want to know about it that studies do not so far support its efficacy, and that has to be of benefit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - at stub level I'm happy with the Cochrane review as a source, and agree with Boing! said Zebedee that documenting its questionable efficacy is useful. Flat Out (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I will work to expand. There is a lot more to say. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:45, 31 January 2017 (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.