Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vesselplasty


 * 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. Non-admin closure Tagged with AfD cleanup Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 10:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Vesselplasty

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to fail WP:GNG: does not cite reliable secondary sources, and I cannot find any, that support notability. Scray (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * keep - The original peer-reviewed research on the subject can be found easily on PubMed, see . The article cites reliable primary sources, for example The American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) is a highly respected peer-reviewed radiology journal. There is an article on ScienceDaily too (re-printed from AJR), see .  Toffanin (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Any secondary sources, to establish notability, particularly in light of WP:MEDRS? -- Scray (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * after a deep investigation with Google, I have found a research on PubMed (see ) about a so called Vessel-X(R) bone void filling container system; Vessel-X (or Vessel lock system) is an emerging technique (patent pending) in spine surgery also known by the name vesselplasty. At the moment there is a WP article about Vessel-X too, and by searching Vessel-X is possible to find several studies and researches on the subject (see, and  are the prominent); there is also a peer-review medical book published by Elsevier that explains the details of the technique (see ). Clinical trials for this new technique are at an early stage so there aren't enough data for a wide coverage from primary sources; maybe a redirect (with merge of the relevant content) to Vessel-X is a preferable alternative to AfD. Toffanin (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that research, but I have not yet seen a suitable secondary source. Both of the refs for the Vessel-X article are abstracts of primary research reports (and so that article should be deleted, too - I'll AfD it while people are looking at these articles to avoid duplication of effort - OK, now it's over here).  -- Scray (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * keep - The article cites reliable primary sources.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The technique has been published in some well-established peer-reviewed journals. However, those articles have received almost no citations per Google Scholar. The technique has been around at least since 2006, plenty of time for it to be referenced by others if it was actually influencing practice in the field. I conclude that this technique has not yet found widespread acceptance. --MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I think there is just enough to keep. the book chapter is in my opinion a good indication of probable notability. And the article in American Journal of Roentgenology . is in a very high quality journal. Some rewriting to decrease the emphasis on the advantage might be a good idea; I'm a little concerned about the promotional aspects here, to the point that I am  going to recommend we not make a redirect from the trade name    DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Academic journal coverage means that it's encyclopedic.  We keep pop culture articles because their subjects get mentioned by a couple of newspaper stories (despite our not-a-newspaper standards), and should we delete a page because it's gotten only a few academic journal articles?  Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What if the newspaper stories were written by the musicians themselves? We have specific standards for medicine-related content for good reasons.  Secondary sources are needed.  -- Scray (talk) 01:57, 2 March 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.