Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anal sphincterotomy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anal sphincterotomy[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Anal sphincterotomy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has been unsourced since Feb 2007. After 15 years, I think a deletion discussion is appropriate. Coin945 (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a simple google search reveals WP:SIGCOV. SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Did you bother to check the ICD-10? The AMA's CPT? Did you bother to ask anyone in WikiProject Medicine? American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons? This goes beyond WP:BEFORE and is really just YGBSM! Hyperion35 (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a dictionary definition which is a clear violation of Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. Keep up the good work Coin945 and do not be intimadated by the supporters of grandfather clauses who need to go back to 1925 Alabama where they belong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider striking part of that comment. Keep the discussion on the matter of the subject and article, and you should hopefully understand why your comparison of other editors to Jim Crow is offensive and unacceptable. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while an unpleasent procedure sources on it abound: [1][2][3].--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 05:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note OtherStuffExists at articles like Lateral internal sphincterotomy, Anal fissure, and Surgical management of fecal incontinence. (Sorry for the subject matter...).--Coin945 (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Who knew that Wikipedia life would include having to decide whether an article like this should be kept or deleted. Anyway, this is a procedure which will have sources on-line, and in text books and resource material, so these can be found and placed in the article. I suspect that the subject of the article is such that mainstream editors were unable or unwilling to contribute to the finding of sources. This is a matter for the wider Wikipedia community, not a reason to delete the article. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; a Google Scholar search returns 1,360 results, so the idea of an anal sphincterotomy seems to be quite clearly notable. What's the difference between this and a lateral internal sphincterotomy? Well, I don't know, I'm not a surgeon... but it seems like this is obviously a thing which gets mentioned in literature, and a thing which has its own ICD code. Perhaps it really is a subtype of another procedure, in which case its content should be merged -- excuse me, grafted -- into another article by someone with a bit more training. But this isn't mentioned in the nomination, it isn't addressed by the delete !vote above, and I don't think we can diagnose whether this article should be excised without a proper surgical consult. jp×g 08:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete verifiability guidelines state that all articles must be sourced. We should not be creating articles that we do not have the expertise to even sort out the sourcing to make them inteligible. I am sorry about my poetic way to refer to grandfathering. I am just frustrated that people act as if we have any reason to defer to the fact that an article exists in analyzing it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, sources added. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being unsourced for any period of time in itself is not a valid reason for deletion. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable procedure. (Fair warning, now illustrated.) --GRuban (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable. PianoDan (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. Plus, as User:Lugnuts points out, no valid case for deletion was made. gidonb (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons above, but does need additional sourcing. Mukedits (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lateral internal sphincterotomy, a more developed article on the same subject. Mukedits (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anal_sphincterotomy&oldid=1073226399"