Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hemobag


 * 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 of the debate was kept post-rewrite. DS 14:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hemobag
Blatant advertising. 72 unique Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Only if it were renamed to "Intraoperative blood salvage" or "Cell saver" and thoroughly reworked would I reconsider. Nephron 04:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I moved it again -- Intraoperative blood salvage is a more descriptive term - and in wider use in the medical community -- compare autologous blood salvaging (PubMed) vs. intraoperative blood salvage (PubMed). Also, it yields more Google hits 595 vs. 24 -- intraoperative blood salvage (Google) autologous blood salvage (Google). It is alright to Keep. Nephron 04:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Zoe. FreplySpang (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless it can be merged into a topic on the actual medical process of blood transfusion. Harr o 5 04:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well done Alba. Harr o 5 04:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

*Delete Advertising. Fan1967 04:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Looks pretty good, now. Excellent work. Fan1967 07:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. I know for sure I saw the creator's arguments for keeping it on someone's talk page, and we should hear them.  I just don't know where they are... -- Rory 0 96 04:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been argued that the article should be kept on my talk and on the article talk. Harr o 5 04:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment and vote to keep: I have been bold, removed adcruft, and moved the page to Autologous blood salvaging. Please read new article version before voting. Alba 04:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep- Excellent rewrite. Reyk 05:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Alba. -- Rory 0 96 05:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Alba's rewrite. --Ter e nce Ong 05:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep now that the advertising has been removed. J I P  | Talk 08:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments and questions. As the creator of the article, I cannot agree with the above comment, "excellent rewrite". All the person doing the revising did was delete 1 sentence in the introduction and about 5 sentences under the Hemobag entry itself! The rest of my work remains as is. The person also included a few more links to wikipedia pages, which I would have done myself - this was only a first draft.

About the entry being blatant advertising I disagree. Look at what was said about the Hemobag in the original. It's one of 3 methodologies used to for intraoperative blood salvage, specifically a new type of technology using an ultrafiltration reservoir; studies to date have shown it to be safe but studies using clinical trials are neede to show if it really is effective and safe. The rest of the entry was background material to show why blood salvage devices are needed and why they need to be improved. Moreover the scientific links to published research that I added (4 of which remain) are quite critical of blood salvage technology in general and present a balanced perspective.

Frankly, the Haemonetics entry is pure advertising with absolutely no redeeming scientific or education value! The Hemobag article was the opposite.

A general question - this article was written as an entry for the Hemobag and now has been changed into an entry for Intraoperative blood salvage. As the creator of an article that has been revised but is substantially the same as originally written (except for deletion of about 6 sentences), should I choose to (and it's only a maybe at this time), do I not have the right to delete the article? Not saying I would but am curious about wikipedia policy. Blut
 * Reply: Your original material was otherwise OK, but the paragraph specifically about the Hemobag® read like advertising. The way the article is now, including both your work and the rewriter's, is encyclopedic enough to keep in Wikipedia. J I P  | Talk 08:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Creator's Reply:Thanks but the rewriter deleted 6 sentences - the rest (there's a lot of work there) is mine.

About interpreting the Hemobag portion as advertising, here's the 5 sentences I wrote: --- ''The Hemobag® is a new type of ultrafiltration reservoir designed to overcome the limitations of RBC-savers and direct retransfusion in cardiac, vascular, and other types of surgery through hemofiltration. The methodology of blood salvaging with the Hemobag® in the operating room is depicted in this video''.

''Being a new ultrafiltration method, the Hemobag® was not included in earlier papers and studies. Studies to date have shown the Hemobag® to quickly and safely recover substantial proteins, clotting factors, and red cell concentrates (References 5-7). While the Hemobag® shows promise, randomized clinical studies of the Hemobag® are needed to more fully assess patient outcomes and to measure reduction of allogeneic blood products.''

The Hemobag statements are backed by references. There's a link to a video; it shows the new technology in action. Believe me promotional copy reads quite differently, and does not have links to studies that question the entire process of cell salvaging!

Contrast with the Haemonetics entry (only a few extracted - the entire entry is an advertisement!):

''It has offices worldwide... Haemonetics has been a global leader in blood processing technology. The Company has two families of products:....Haemonetics is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker HAE.....''

Give me a break! User blut


 * Keep (as it is now Intraoperative blood salvage) without advertising copy. Looks fixed to me. ProhibitOnions 11:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep version now at Intraoperative blood salvage. Eusebeus 12:40, 13 March 2006 (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.