Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robotic prostatectomy (2nd nomination)

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The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robotic prostatectomy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article serve little purpose other than as an advertisement for the da Vinci Surgical System, and does little to expand on the factual information contained at that page. It has become a magnet for spam links. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is highly notable, being covered in numerous respectable sources such as this. As this procedure is a common one, the article obviously serves a purpose besides mention of the equipment which is approved for this purpose. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dr Patel, the author of the cited reference, and his associates at the Global Robotics Institute would like the topic to be notable (as indicated by several attempts by PRPLwiki (talk · contribs), whose earlier usernames indicated a clear association with GRI, to create an article about Dr. Patel based on his work in the field), but it does not appear that robotic prostatectomy is any different than other forms of robotic surgery. The da Vinci Surgical System article already mentions that the device is used largely in prostatectomy surgeries, and already contains a list of benefits that can accrue from robotic surgery over standard laparoscopic techniques. This article does not provide any expanded information over the prior articles, but it does serve as a magnet for doctors and hospitals wishing to advertise their services in the field. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are hundreds of scholarly papers about the topic written by numerous authors. Any excessive promotion found in these articles should be addressed by ordinary editing. Per our deletion and editing policies, deletion is clearly inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but requires a lot of cleanup. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 20:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or consider merging to prostatectomy. Along with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, there is enough to clean up. Whether they should be one or three articles is not clear to me. There is probably enough material to merit three articles, but at the moment the volume is mostly chaff. My initial thought is that the two techniques will merit disproportionate space which is why I put keep ahead of merge. The advantages of merging are, as I see it, concentrating the work needed into one place and less articles to patrol for spam. I concur that deletion is not indicated.Novangelis (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The extra "volume" at robotic prostatectomy that extends beyond the content of prostatectomy or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is either material already available at da Vinci Surgical System or is purely promotional. There doesn't seem to be any substance worth keeping or merging. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Your point was valid. I thought there was a little more substance among the puffery than there was. I wound up saving only the lede upon editing. My recommendation stands and I hope you will reevaluate based on the new version.Novangelis (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to Novangelis (talk · contribs) for separating the wheat from the chaff!!! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn based on Novangelis' remarkable cleanup efforts -- finding enough unique (and verifiable) substance to differentiate this particular procedure from other similar procedures. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.