Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N-localizer


 * 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. Consensus to keep and improve is clear. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 17:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

N-localizer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Page is terribly promotional. As you can see in the history I had cleaned it up and merged/redirected what was useful and nonredundant (which was almost nothing) to Stereotactic surgery after having cleaned up that page in these diffs. All the promotional primary-sourced dreck was restored, as you can see in the history. Please flush this. Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The N-localizer article provides information that is well documented via literature citations that are found in the "References" and "Further Reading" sections of the article. That information is available at no other Wikipedia page and serves as a useful introduction to the N-localizer. Jytdog's use of the words "dreck" and "flush" suggests a lack of objectivity. I ask that the editors of Wikipedia intervene and prevent further tampering with this article. Kirigiri
 * Kirigirl, please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep  - I am no expert on this device, so cannot tell you whether what the article on it says is accurate, but at least the article is well referenced. Vorbee (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Well this is certainly a surprising nomination for AfD, and so is the language used in the nomination. The article is well cited and the topic plainly of encyclopedic interest. It is hard to see it as promotional given that the device was invented in 1978 (forty years ago, surely long past patents and new academic papers); nor is the tone promotional. The works cited are by at least 14 different teams, so academic promotion also looks unlikely, or at least can form only a small part of the content. I'm happy to be persuaded but it looks like an obvious keep, really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is excessive detail, gives excessive importance to this device, and is full of what are pretty clearly self-citations. It "looks" fine, I know. I spent significant time looking at this and the apparent COI is very, very apparent.  This is why I merged it away. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The article is not overlong, and is about a well-defined topic. Brown invented the device, so six citations out of twenty-five seems pretty reasonable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There are exactly 11 citations. 5 are from Brown. They are all primary except for one . This is very typical academic COI editing. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC) (fix Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC))


 * You're overlooking the citations in the Further reading section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are not citations. They are not used to generate content. Please don't confuse the discussion.
 * Again, the device is given DUE weight in the article to which I merged it. This page is academic promotionalism. Which is a thing that happens.  Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You are confusing "inline citation" with citation-in-general. See WP:GENREF. "A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not linked ..." Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not correct. The style of this page is inline citations. There are only 11 citations.  More essentially; I do understand that you cannot see that this page is fundamentally promotional and is academic spam.  This is a problem from which our project suffers; I have dealt with many instances of this. It is sadly common for academics to abuse their editing privileges to promote themselves and their work and even sock to do so (example, example, example.. and that is just some of them, and just some of them who resorted to socking).  This person's editing is exactly like theirs.  Excessive (apparent) self-citation, use of primary sources to build a promotional story in violation of WP:SYN and WP:PROMO, altogether UNDUE weight on their work. All evading COI management. I will not respond to you further. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And this was another-- SPI. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Jytdog's assertion that the N-localizer is sufficiently discussed in the stereotactic surgery article to which it was merged. Although Figure 1 was copied from the N-localizer article to the "History" section of the stereotactic surgery article, that figure alone is insufficient to describe how the N-localizer functions. Specifically, three N-localizers are required to accomplish the necessary geometric transformation, as discussed in association with Figures 2 and 3 of the N-localizer article. Imagine that you are reading the stereotactic surgery article and would like to understand how the N-localizer functions. In the absence of a link to the N-localizer article, you would have to obtain one of the cited references from the stereotactic surgery article. Why should a reader be required to go to such lengths when a short article describing the N-localizer already exists on Wikipedia? Moreover, Jytdog dismisses literature references from the "Further Reading" section of the N-localizer article because those references are not in the "References" section of the article. A simple solution to that issue would be for Jytdog to move those references from the "Further Reading" section to the "References" section. Kirigiri
 * Would you please reply to my inquiry at your talk page? Or here, would be fine.  Managing conflicts of interest is very common, as I am sure you aware, and the first step is disclosure of the conflict of interest. I am sure you are aware that failing to disclose conflicts of interest is something that brings consequences in the real world. It does here as well. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep this is a notable topic. The size is not excessive, however there is some puffery of the topic that can be edited to improve. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree. It is notable, and the article can be improved. scope_creep (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment : WP:G5 does not apply, since the sockpuppet was blocked after creating and contributing extensively to the contested article. Here is the page's history. -The Gnome (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2018 (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.