Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doppler guided transanal dearterialization

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 speedy delete as duplicate of THD method which is also at AFD here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doppler guided transanal dearterialization[edit]

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

Yet another repost of an article that has already been deleted as the result of an AfD here and twice subsequently as a repost. This is word-for-word identical with the original. The original nomination was that "this appears to be an essay explaining this technique in removing hemorrhoids - and beyond promotional tone, not a lot more than that", and the point was made that although the supporting references exist there is no evidence of notability and the article is not suitable for merging because of its ad-like tone. So I'm nominating it as a reposted, non-notable, soapbox essay. andy (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as promotional peacocking. This article is a recreation of a deleted article of no merit and should have been deleted per CSD G4.Novangelis (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being an essay on a proper subject is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. Consider working on articles as a substitute for tagging them for deletion. This is Wikipedia:Deletion policy. And the number of medical articles on transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization, published in such places as the peer-reviewed American Journal of Surgery (example: doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2002.11.003), the peer-reviewed Diseases of the Colon and Rectum (example: doi:10.1007/s10350-005-0281-8), and the peer-reviewed Techniques in Coloproctology (example: doi:10.1007/s10151-007-0376-4) indicates that you could clean this article up if you actually tried. I note from the previous AFD discussion, Novangelis, that you prefer an unsourced paragraph of text to an article which cites four journal articles on the subject. What on Earth is possessing you to favour unsourced content over actual sources and content that can be worked with? For goodness' sake pull out the editing tool to write without mercy instead of to call for deletion again and again! Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the article as it stands is unsalvageable, and the point has been previously made that the topic is already covered at Hemorrhoid#Procedures although not in such depth. It could only be rewritten by an expert who could see their way through the blether and inaccuracies of the current article ("one of the most widespread and feared anal-rectal diseases" for goodness sake!) and create something better. It's very easy to say "write without mercy", but a non-expert could do no better than Hemorrhoid#Procedures. andy (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of an inline citation does not make a statement inaccurate. On the other hand, sources are meaningless if the article does not resemble the content of the sources. This piece of promotional fluff should be deleted for the fourth time, and swiftly. The existing text is beyond salvage. If I thought it was salvageable, I would have made the effort or, at the minimum, recommended against deletion. I've found little to salvage or articles I thought were more savable.Novangelis (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Hemorrhoid#Procedures as per andy. And possibly protect the redirect page, to prevent yet another recreation of this badly titled, horribly written article. There are many treatments for hemorrhoids available; they should all be in one place, unless a separate article for one of them is required by some striking notability. --MelanieN (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article's link to this AfD discussion is a redlink. I have no idea why. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. andy (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hemorrhoid#Procedures. If this method is found to be notable, then perhaps someone from WP:MED can fix this article later. As it stands, the article is not salvageable. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:16, 22 July 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.