Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration


 * 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. WP:BEFORE should have been done. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 23:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No references, barely a dictionary definition  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 20:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  20:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, as it is covered in depth in numerous book sources. For instance,
 * Glenn's Urologic Surgery
 * Fertility Cryopreservation
 * Clinical Andrology
 * Microsurgery for Fertility Specialists
 * plus numerous scholarly papers
 * The nominator should be ashamed of herself for not doing even a cursory WP:BEFORE. SpinningSpark 21:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Passes WP:N. Sources include, among others. As per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon available sources, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. There's a vast difference between the actual notability of this topic relative to its presumed non-notability per a lack of sources in the article when it was nominated for deletion. North America1000 22:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per everyone above - Now passes GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the topic has passed GNG for a long time. Topic notability is based upon source availability, and not upon the state of sourcing in articles. See WP:NRVE. North America1000 01:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - Perhaps I'm misunderstanding here but there was no sources prior to nomination so how could it have passed GNG if no sources were there?, It doesn't take a lot to confuse me you know . – Davey 2010 Talk 03:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Read the first line at WP:GNG (bold emphasis mine), "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Note that the guideline says "topic", rather than article, and refers to topics in general. North America1000 03:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahhhhh that's where I've been going wrong - I was reading it as article for some reason, Ah well thanks for explaining :) – Davey 2010 Talk 04:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's plenty to say about this procedure, and plenty of reliable sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. This should be speedy closed. SpinningSpark 16:27, 11 June 2015 (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.