Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miniature Ingestible Capsule


 * 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 Miniature Ingestible Capsule and redirect Wireless capsule endoscopy to capsule endoscopy; any content that has merit may be merged from the history. Sandstein 21:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Miniature Ingestible Capsule

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There are three articles on capsule endoscopy that this author has created. It has been shown that the author has a conflict of interest and is the father of a capsule endoscope inventor. The author has also admitted to plagiarism, which he subsequently deleted on another Talk page. I suggest that out of the three articles, capsule endoscopy be left and the other two deleted, as the term itself is what is generally used in medical literature. Cyborg Ninja 04:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See also: Articles for deletion/Wireless capsule endoscopy. utcursch | talk 04:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: User:SatinderMullick reverted versions for all three articles in order to erase AfD tags (the AfDs are not closed at this time) and made more poor additions to the capsule endoscopy article. - Cyborg Ninja 15:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Evidence?JJJ999 05:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Did you bother reading through the talk pages of the three articles? Or look at the author's talk page? - Cyborg Ninja 05:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Neutral There is no discussion page for this article. So, on the evidence of the article alone, I cannot give any reason to keep or delete this article at this time.  -- Blind  Eagle  talk ~ contribs  16:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Trying not to be rude here, but how can you say there is a lack of evidence when not only did I explain the situation in the nomination, but you also posted a decision in the entry directly below this? Did you not see the connection or notice what you were voting on before doing so? - Cyborg Ninja 03:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory of patents. If necessary, merge (with history) any salvageable content to Capsule Endoscopy. Just had another look at the article -- there is nothing to merge. The article is a soapbox for a patent dispute. utcursch | talk 04:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions.   —Espresso Addict 10:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and recreate as redirect to Capsule Endoscopy (which should probably be moved to capsule endoscopy). A look at the history suggests there's no non-spammy content here. If someone independent were to create a brief discussion on the disputed patents in the main article that would be useful. Espresso Addict 11:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know how to redirect or move a page. If someone can do that for me after a consensus is reached, many thanks. - Cyborg Ninja 16:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The nominator doesn't have to -- the closing admin will do it, if that's the consensus reached. I've just moved Capsule Endoscopy as there seemed no reason why not to do it in advance of closure of these AfDs. Espresso Addict 17:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no need for bothering with a redirect. Like I said before, "miniature ingestible capsule" was a proposed title for a patent; it was never branded as such and is not used in medical literature. "Capsule endoscopy" and "wireless capsule endoscopy" are, however. It should be clear why "miniature ingestible capsule" is not an appropriate name for capsule endoscopy. Perhaps if it were a "Miniature Ingestible Capsule Endoscope"TM then a redirect would make sense. - Cyborg Ninja 15:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As per blind eagle, no real evidence one way or another, and discussion page deleted when I checked. So, Keep for now until some sort of clean up to remove COI and POV.JJJ999 07:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have explained this already. There is a clear WP:COI as mentioned on the Talk:Capsule_endoscopy page.


 * Delete - Why on earth do we need several articles for the same thing? Also, WP:COI as noted. Phasmatisnox 03:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ingestible Capsule is the broader and oldest name used by many since 50's.If you like,I can give references.Even Given Imaging used Ingestible Capsule wordings in their press releases.NASA has used it including a few movies. Capsule Endoscopy is one use of Ingestible Capsule. The reason for mentioning patents is--To inform public at large that There are three groups claiming to be inventors of this technology.At the request of Olympus Corp.,US Patent office rejected claims1,2,3 and 11 of Iddan(now owned by Given)patents in 2006.SO PLEASE DO NOT BECOME THE JUDGE--let the Court Jury decide in 2/3 years. Also future developments and applications need to be mentioned--as the use of Capsule camera along with other gadgets will make Endoscopy,Colonoscopy,Surgery truly REVOLUTIONARY.Imagine--a doctor in California operating on a patient in New York using these advancements. PLEASE LET PUBLIC see all the information for 2/3 years--Wikipedia is the only place where you can find complete and true information with many references. After 2/3 years,this technology will mature,then Wikipedia can chose the topics to keep or delete. For example,If you are researcher,these articles give you in one place lot of information.If you are an investor--you want to know the Patent disputes and legal spending.As an investor ,you want to know this technology in the future time line--is it where Microsoft or Genentech or Amgen or Heart Surgery or Breast Cancer detection was 10 to 20 years ago.For Colon Cancer detection,current colonoscopy is invasive unlike Beast cancer.But Using Capsule Camera,you could prescreen millions for Polyps that become cancerous. Thanks,Dr.Satinder Mullick--author of famous Harvard Business Review article in July 1971 on Forecasting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SatinderMullick (talk • contribs) 15:58, 8 October 2007 (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.