Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of implants


 * 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

History of implants

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An unholy mishmash from various articles' history sections that constitutes original research, made based on unfounded concerns about article size that are based on one of the least-followed policies or guidelines on the project. A user who didn't even start a new talk page with a section header and needed to be told the basics of talk page guidelines has no business making dictates about major article reorganisations on this project. Graham 87 08:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * quote "Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:

Westerners in general can access Wikipedia freely. However in China (another example is Turkey), the Great Firewall denies access to Wikipedia. They are supposed to read the not-so-free and who-cares-about-neutrality encyclopedias only: Baidu Baike and Baike.com. Netizens who are thirsty for real knowledge still want to read Wikipedia, and how do they do that? They break through the firewall and read at a slower speed. For the Third World, it could be a combination of factors: living too far away from the city, Wi-Fi sharing, old/slow hardware. Tony85poon (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Wikipedia is not primarily designed for those people, and anything we do to accommodate them should not degrade the user experience for other readers. For example the way you arranged the history of the Hip replacement article effectively hid the history section ... nobody would think to look for it in the see also section of the article, because that's a completely non-standard location. That also breaks summary style, a core guideline which determines how content is organised here. Also the prose sizes on the article size page are *readable* prose size, not the size of the wikitext; the Ocular prosthesis page's readable prose size is only 23KB per User:Dr pda/prosesize. Graham 87  14:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment - I agree with Graham87 in theory, most of the changes to the underlying articles should be changed back - wikipedia is an encyclopedia (WP:PILLARS) and histories of medical procedures can and usually should be in articles about procedures regardless of Chinese policies and methods of their circumvention. In the middle- or long-term, and article, "History of implants" seems encyclopedic, and I don't like !voting delete on a TNT basis along. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment I apologize for the way I edited the breast article, Ocular prosthesis article, the Prosthesis ‎article and the Hip article. Having said that, I think (and I better stay away from doing this) maybe there should be new "History of breast implants" and "History of prosthesis" articles. There is a heated debate of whether Dental implant and Root analogue dental implant should be merged altogether here. They used to have their own history sections. The history content has gotten so big and has driven me to do this in the first place.

In order to make progress efficiently, I shall change the scope, that is, moving to "History of dental treatments". I shall chop off all the breast, Prosthesis ‎et cetera contents in this article. I intend to keep the George Washington denture content in this article though. Btw I thank User:Diannaa. As a follow-up, I started a dental discussion at Talk:Dentures. Tony85poon (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Userfy (move to draft) - not ready for main space, not yet a fully developed draft. I suggest letting Tony85poon working on this in draft space, and once he is done crafting a draft that is better than the parent article (and has consensus to do so) - moving this to mainspace and trimming the parent article. Icewhiz (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic of the article is notable and encyclopedic, and just because it's not written perfectly, or there are concerns about an editor, is not a reason for deletion. IF there is consensus that this isn't ready for main space (which I disagree with, we have lots of WP:NOTFINISHED content here) then would support move to user space and submission through AfD. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Draftify. As others have explained to my satisfaction, this subject is notable, but it is not yet ready for mainspace. Let's return it to draft space and, when the author feels it is ready, they can submit it for an AfC review. --  No COBOL  (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. 'Draft space' is not safe. After deleting another article with good reason, the Administrator deleted my User:Tony85poon/sandbox-fellowship too. By the way, I am fine with the Administrator deleting that other article. I just point out that 'draft space' can somehow disappear. Tony85poon (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Draftify -- The topic is worth having and I am sorry that is has been moved to being dental. At present it is merely repeating information that is probably in two main articles, but there is scope for including the history (from 1982) of implant surgery.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Good observation. In the old version, I did try to reduce the length of the Dentures article. However, Graham87 undid my edit. Then, the two articles look highly similar. After this article becomes stable (survives the deletion debate), someone can reduce the readable prose size  of the Dentures article per "A summary of the history should at least remain here?" James' logic. Tony85poon (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2019 (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.