Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Percutaneous hydrotomy


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 00:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Percutaneous hydrotomy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Potentially fringe medical subject of low notability. The only sources are primary sources by the creator of the technique, thus running afoul of WP:MEDRS. Fails WP:GNG for lack of available reliable secondary sources. - MrX 17:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. - MrX 17:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete - Per non notable and promotional VViking Talk Edits 03:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

delete Ian Furst (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

delete, promotional and not sourced as per WP:MEDRS - I checked and there are no hits on Pubmed at all... certainly no secondary sources there. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

delete & remove from the other pages, per all. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

delete Need proper sourcing per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. There does appear to be a centre that uses this technique. However I could not find any third-party descriptions to establish notability. There is nothing in PubMed. There is a self-published case series, but this is not peer-reviewed, and is a primary source anyway.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  19:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This web page has links to a number of practitioners who apparently use the technique. Despite this, the technique still lacks evidence of notability. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  19:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

keep Charles Nguyen Van Royel, Traitement de la gonarthrose : mésothérapie conventionnelle versus hydrotomie percutanée à propos de 20 cas, Diplôme Inter-Universitaire de Mésothérapie de Paris VI, juin 2009. The above referenced French article (shown as no. 10 under references in the English Percutaneous Hydrotomy article) addressess a study made in Paris, France 2009 with a representative universe of patients where the Percutaneous Hydrotomy technique was used versus other Mesotherapy techniques with positive results which brings conclusive notability and sourcing to this particular technique among other references shown in the article in question plus also being used presently by many medical doctors internationally as shown on the Association Internationale d'Hydrotomie Percutanée (A.I.H.P.)under list of practioners. Therefore, I feel this article complies with the norms followed by Wikipédia and should have a ××××KEEP×××× status. This Wikipedia article concerning Percutaneous Hydrotomy in English is a translation of a similar article which has already been published and approved in the French Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve michael x (talk • contribs) 23:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Steve michael x (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You are the creator of the article that is subject of this discussion, and the content in other articles, and are clearly new to Wikipedia. First,  what happens in French WP has nothing to do with what we do here.  More importantly, please explain, and this is a very serious question --  who are "we"?    Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Zeus t&#124; u &#124; c 04:08, 3 June 2014 (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.