Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-Vas Occlusion


 * 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Pro-Vas Occlusion

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The original version of this article was quite clearly an advertisement. It was worked over and worked over to obscure its essential nature, which is still that of an advertisement. At first glance, it has an impressive number of citations, but all the major cites are for general vasectomy statistics, not for the article subject. On that, there are a number of unreliable sources used, some incomplete and impossible to verify. The only legit source I see is to Click 2 Houston, which is just a tiny profile, not really significant coverage. —Torchiest talkedits 21:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The general class of medical devices used in these surgeries is notable, but this specific brand name doesn't seem to be. I think that it's a case for WP:FAILN:  it could be mentioned in passing in another article, but it doesn't merit an article of its own.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Pure advertising. I was going to suggest a redirect to Vasectomy, but it turns out that this device has not been approved as equivalent to a vasectomy and there is no published data supporting its effectiveness; the company itself admits this. We would be doing a disservice to our readers if we imply (via a redirect) that this is a type of vasectomy, when it isn't. --MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2013 (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.