Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goldilocks Mastectomy


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Goldilocks Mastectomy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This procedure was just described; thus, it hasn't been discussed in WP:MEDRS to meet the WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biosthmors (talk • contribs)


 * Delete. I couldn't find appropriate secondary sources about this. If suitable sources arise in the future, the information should be incorporated into "Mastectomy". Axl  ¤  [Talk]  18:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect A small bit of this content can be merged into mastectomy. Insufficient sources for its own article. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient coverage in multiple, independent reliable secondary sources. The only sources that mention this technique by the name are 1) the website "goldilocksmastectomy.com", which mentions Dr. Grace Ma by name, and is registered to Ma, and 2) the single IJS article, co-authored Ma.  As both sources are connected to Ma, neither one can be considered independent, which leaves us with no independent reliable secondary sources.  This article should be deleted and not merged into mastectomy due to the complete lack of independent coverage.    19:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers,  Riley   Huntley  20:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers,  Riley   Huntley  20:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi - I am the author of the article. Not sure why this article needs to be deleted - it is a factual thing that exists. here is a link to the presentation that I made on it to the Assocoation of breast surgeons in Bourne mouth, Uk - http://www.associationofbreastsurgery.org.uk/abs-conferences/past-meetings/abs-conference-agm-2012.aspx

Here is another surgeon who performs thsi operation: http://www.breastsurgeryclinic.co.uk/breast-cancer/mastectomy.aspx and here is a link to his images of a "goldilocks mastectomy" that he performed. http://www.breastsurgeryclinic.co.uk/breast-cancer-surgery-and-breast-reconstruction/simple-mastectomy.aspx?page=9

Because I am connected to the seconday sources does not make this any less of a real thing. The topic has been reviewed and published by an independent source - the International Journal of Surgery. If Dr Ma or I owned the International Journal of surgery or if my article was self-published, I would understand the issue. I would really appreciate any suggestions or help to make this page more "valid" because I don't understand the logic behind the need to delete.

thanks for the input and for reviewing the need to keep/delete. kippacatKippacat (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi kippcat, let me try to explain: Not every real thing gets an article in Wikipedia--just those that have attracted attention in the literature. See this brief description of what qualifies a subject. —teb728 t c 23:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * keep meets the basic WP:GNG criteria in having two independent references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Question "two independent references"? Which ones?  I went through the references again, both the ones in the article and the additional ones mentioned above, and all the references that provide any detail and mention "Goldilocks mastectomy" by name are directly connected to the surgeons who invented the technique and appear to be trying to popularize it.  They can't be considered "independent" and can't be used to establish notability.  Am I missing other references?    14:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've yet to see a secondary, independent, and reliable medical source. Biosthmors (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theo polisme  02:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:GNG - the topic of mastectomy attracts huge attention generally (it's a very commonly-performed procedure), so any substantive procedural advance gets plenty of coverage (even within weeks). This article's subject has received miniscule coverage, clearly not notable.  WP is not the place to promote it.  -- Scray (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉  22:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not Notable PianoDan (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2012 (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.