Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epineurial repair

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. The article has been substantially rewritten since the nomination, such that the nomination's concerns no longer seem to apply. Sandstein 16:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Epineurial repair[edit]

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

Editor stated in edit summary that this is his thesis. It's a how-to guide of a medical procedure to repair the epineurium. The encyclopedia is not the place for essays or how-to guides. PROD removed. Cindy(talk to me) 19:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The procedure needs to be rephrased, though, so it's a discussion or description rather than a step-by-step how-to guide. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article's content is a near total loss as it's almost all how-to. What remains, and what should be there, could be a section in epineurium. -- Scray (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has it horrible style issues? Yes. Can they be solved by editing? Yes. Therefore, are they a reason to delete? No. Does it pass WP:GNG? Hell yes, lots of references in academic RS in the article. What do we do? We keep it. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't care if it stays up. Just need it up until December 18th to get credit for a into to neuroscience class. I was trying to write it for a lay person to understand the the viewpoint of the surgeon. If some one uses this as a how-to guide, Darwinism takes over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgore3 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care if it stays up. Just need it up until December 18th to get credit for a into to neuroscience class. - Sorry if it sounds rude, but we do not care if you "need it to get credit". Wikipedia is not a repository for homework. Second, you do not own articles you create. We could (and honestly should) rewrite it from top to bottom. I agree it should stay because the topic is notable, but if you want to help the encyclopedia (and possibly get a good credit: win-win situation), please take care of rewriting it according to our policies. Start from WP:NOT. Thanks! --Cyclopia ^talk 15:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't say I own it. The history of the article shows my contributions to it. This counts as peer review because wikipedia has a back log and what constructive feedback seemingly only Anthonyhcole has given helps me write it better. I added a talk page if you have anymore constructive feedback. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Epineurial_repair Jgore3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.148.203 (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you are doing a good job. Sorry if my words seemed harsh. I know you didn't say you own it, but it's better sometimes to make it clear from the start -it's understandable that authors are attached to their articles! I'll see what can I do to help. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (changing to Keep, see below) I agree with User:Scary. This is not an encyclopedia article. Put a paragraph (in general and without all the how-to stuff) in the article Epineurium, and delete this without a redirect. Sorry, Jgore3, but Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, not a place for you to get help with your homework. If there are people here willing to help you with it, you could ask the closing administrator to userfy it to you; that will give you the article on a private page, where you and others can work on it to your heart's content without it cluttering up the encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article still needs a lot of work (which is being done) but the topic is entirely notable, and that's what counts for deletion. If the topic is suitable and we can improve an article by editing, our deletion policy asks us not to delete. Articles that need some work are not "clutter". --Cyclopia ^talk 12:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion to Keep based on the striking improvement since I last looked at it. Based on the initial article I did not think the topic was notable enough for a separate article and could easily have been accommodated within Epineurium. But now that the article has been expanded to include comparison to other procedures, that is no longer true. I still think the how-to section should be deleted or massively trimmed, but that is an editorial issue, not a keep-or-delete issue. Good work! --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I see you are continuing to improve it, Jgore; it keeps getting better and better. I hope you get an A! ;-D (And I never thought I would ever say anything positive about anyone doing their schoolwork on a Wikipedia article!) --MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but much work needed. if this was supposed to be written for a layperson to understand, it is terrible in that regard. It is littered with anatomical, surgical and histopathological terms with no explanation. I feel that this page should be shorter, (not a how-to manual etc) and have jargon explained. Alternatively, move summary of content to epineurium as suggested above.lesion (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is no longer a how-to guide it appears. Is there a current delete rationale? Biosthmors (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care if it stays up. Just need it up until December 18th to get credit for a into to neuroscience class. Oh My Gosh. Well, at least this one is honest, and I hope the prof is reading. So, for the information of your professor, it is still quite a horrible article in terms of prose and organization, and there is currently no indication that it uses sources correctly (per WP:MEDRS). If the article had a single PMID, we could determine what is there that could be kept, and delete the rest. As it stands, pending addition of PMIDs and clarification of what secondary reviews are actually being used, I'm on the fence as to whether it should be merged to Epineurium, which is certainly not overloaded at this point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point about there not being much at epineurium, I added this Biosthmors (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is certainly not a "how-to" guide. The article has several good references. Of course it needs clean up. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:02, 28 November 2012 (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.