Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vattikuti Urology Institute


 * 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   NO CONSENSUS (default to KEEP). To clarify. Article quality and COI are not grounds for deletion, but are issues which certainly need addressing, and should deflect a future nomination. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Vattikuti Urology Institute

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Articles fails WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article is an Advertisment and was created by multiple Promotional PR Accounts and IP's editing from Henry Ford Hospital;
 * - IP from Henry Ford Hospital

Accounts have no other edits other than related to Vattikuti Urology Institute (Henry Ford Hospital related). Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.-- Hu12 (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. User:Hu12, is there a way you can explain how you found out the location of the editors? I'm not really the brightest when it comes to IP addresses...Thanks! --Do you know me??...then SHUT UP!!! 14:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the reasons noted by nom. ArcAngel (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in among the press releases there are a number of RS including procedures first performed there TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 16:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the refs found. COI does not necessarily prove the subject is non notable. Concentration on the pursuit of  spam can lead to this sort of misjudgment. The remedy is for more people to help the nom. on this essential work. DGG (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fundementaly misunderstanding Wikipedia's objective in keeping with neutral point of view policy and What Wikipedia is Not Would lead to this type of misguided conclusion about Conflict of interest and Accounts used for promotion. Unfortunatly Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Content that does not belong in an encyclopedia is removed. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". --Hu12 (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * we do not remove the articles, we remove the advertising. We only remove the articles when there is nothing left otherwise. A factual description of a famous company or organization is not advertising; encyclopedic description is equally right no matter who writes it. If one interprets the meaning of "promotion" in an over-expansive way, the effect of any article about a important company or organization can be seen as promotion. NPOV is the result, not the motivation. DGG (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment, I've substantially re-written the article, reducing, but not eliminating the reliance on primary sources. I believe the advert/COI issues have been dealt with and notability established. I'd appreciate it if you, Hu12, would address any remaining issues with the article Talk toCarithe Busy Bee 03:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. per my nom. Sadly, those arguing for the value of material that was spammed and information which is substandard, inadequate and unencyclopedic and suggesting that such articles be kept regardless of those facts damages the credibility and future success of Wikipedia.--Hu12 (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think that's accurate. What the keeps, or at least I, am saying is that the company is notable per WP:CORP using RS, but that the article needs clean up. Clean up is not a reason for deletion TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 18:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've done some clean-up and removed the worst of the spam. There's a lot more out there but I don't have access to some of the scholarly resources or the Detroit papers. The point remains, just because something is bad now doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. The institute appears to be a well-known research facility that has accomplished signficance in the world of prostate surgery and is notable for same. Why doesn't it deserve an article? You haven't addressed that in your nom or !votes
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, while COI edits may be a reason to revise the article, taken alone that is not sufficient reason to delete an article on an independently noteworthy subject. older ≠ wiser 15:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * comment It is not irrelevant that this is a very well known  institute in  famous hospital.  DGG (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. At most worth a mention on Henry Ford Hospital, however Wikipedia shouldent be cluttered with Vanispamcruftisements that do not matter to the general usership. We don't need an article on every area of Henry Ford Health Systems. Wikipedia is not a junkyard for hospital spam--Hu12 (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article has a promotional tone and it appears to contain medical claims that are sourced to mass media reports. WP:MEDRS would expect us find peer-reviewed professional journals to justify any claims about the quality of the surgery. No objection to recreation of this article with the proper quality of sources. EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * not that we couldn't find them, but popular notability is notability, even for a hospital. I'm a little at a loss to understand the opposition here, This is not a private surgery clinic with some local newspaper spam, or propaganda from a fringe medical organization. DGG (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Found them, will 400 GScholar results do? I'm not familiar with urology but their work is documented. I'm with DGG here, this is a mainstream clinic at a mainstream hospital. I'm curious as to what you think I, who have zero ties to the facility and only been to the airport in Detroit, am promoting in the re-write TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin if this is deleted, please userfy to me and I'll work on it further. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into Henry Ford Hospital to address COI issues. Its primary source of notability is the hospital itself. B.Wind (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2008 (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.