Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Spatial Frame


 * 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. &mdash; Scientizzle 20:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Taylor Spatial Frame

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No evidence of notability. There are no citations, apart from one external link to a page which may or may not be an independent source: even if it is, it is not substantial coverage. The article seems somewhat promotional. (PROD was contested without any reason being given.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Couldn't find much on notability. I did find some peer reviewed articles discussing it (e.g. Taylor Spatial Frame in the treatment of upper extremity conditions. However, I don't think that's enough to make it notable.JoelWhy (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect/Merge to Ilizarov apparatus. This device appears to be a version of that apparatus, not separately notable. --MelanieN (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - This device has been covered in multiple reliable sources. Examples include Post-Gazette, NY Daily News, IOL.  There's more in the news results. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Taking just the first of your links, the Post-Gazette article goes on at substantial length about external frames. It briefly mention the Ilizarov frame toward the end of the article, then cites the Taylor frame as an example of an Ilizarov frame. That's it. This article could be used as evidence for a redirect to Ilizarov apparatus but it certainly doesn't establish any notability of the Taylor frame. --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And the NY Daily News and IOL articles feature the Taylor frames as the primary subject. -- Whpq (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

 Keep - factual description about device in context, related to but not direct version of Ilizarov frame as uses different principles and has different applications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.136 (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no substantial coverage in multiple independent sources. Whpq has found some coverage, but well short of what is needed to show notability. Elton Bunny (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but that is not what we need to establish notability. In fact, if, as you suggest, the Taylor frame is substantially different from the Ilizarov frame, then that makes an article mentioning the latter even less relevant to establishing the notability of the former. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable in orthopedic medical niche  and  and   and  and others.The frame isn't the subject of the articles; treating fractures with it is the focus. DocTree (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Search for this topic in medical sites and journals, not in general newspapers and magazines.  is in the US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, a non-trivial source, under the title "Treatment of complex tibial fractures in children with the taylor spatial frame".  The other links above I found in a couple minutes of searching of 'complex fracture treatment taylor frame' with many more links returned.  I'm certain that his is notable within the medical community and would be valuable to an ordinary person whose friend or family member is to be treated with the device.  I agree the article needs work including in-line citations and expansion but it deserves a place in Wikipedia. DocTree (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand. It appears to be an Article on a fairly standard medical device. It's a stub, to be sure, but that gets fixed by expanding rather than deleting. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources found by User:Doctree, and request expert attention from someone knoweledgeable about medical devices. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:20, 9 May 2012 (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.