DanaBolgar

You can leave me messages here. DanaBolgar (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: DualPortGYN Surgical Technique deletion

While your old username was suboptimal, the article was deleted because it was blatantly self-promotional and read like an advertisement. Do other such techniques have their own article? It might instead be better to mention this mechanism in an existing article if appropriate. LFaraone 16:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This discussion belongs on-wiki; I'm not going to chat about it via email. The article as written, while describing a possibly interesting mechanism, probably fails WP:GNG and is written like an advertisement. LFaraone 17:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, DualPortGYN Surgical Technique does read like an advertisement, and it also contains long sections of close paraphrases of marketing from the company's website: please see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. I don't want to see it deleted again, because I think it can it be fixed, but it needs a great deal of re-writing. Captain Conundrum (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of DualPortGYN Surgical Technique

The article DualPortGYN Surgical Technique has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Trademark for commercial laparoscopic surgery variant. None of the references are independent. None of the references are WP:RS.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Status and Advice

As reviewing administrator, I just deleted the article; I read the talk page, and I saw the suggestions there, and also looked at the brief discussion on the Wikiproject. I decided against moving the article, because it needs to be rewritten extensively to be less promotional. (the same is true for some of the other articles on surgical techniques, but we have to deal with them one at a time). I should mention my specialty here is in dealing with promotional articles--and I do have biomedical experience. There are two problems: First the proprietary name should not be used, beyond a single mention of it. Repeating it in every section sounds promotional. Second, the article is organized and oriented to expound the benefits--we do not do it. We present waht it is and what it is used for, giving the clinical data, and writing the benefits section as supported as closely as possible by third party references. (Anything not so supported, or anything from the manufacturer or the inventor, really should be described as proposed or suggested or possible benefits. ) Presumably also there are some contraindications or limitations, and these must be described also.; The list of procedures for which the technique has been used should not be supported by a clinic's web site, but from published review articles in peer-reviewed journals. A clinic's description of what it does is its self=promotion, and not really reliable. Good luck with the rewrite. I'll be glad to offer advice , or ask at the wikiproject. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)