- 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 delete. LFaraone 01:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Minimplants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Term appears to be trademarked neoligism used nowhere else in dental literature Ottojas (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (natter) @ 09:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete is my first preference, or possibly a redirect to Mini dental implant. "Minimplants" returns zero hits on PubMed. Only source cited at article is a link to a trademark registration, the owner of that trademark is the guy who has the Twitter feed name "@Minimplants". Reviews like PMID 19409331 make me think the device is a kind of Mini dental implant.
Zad6802:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The stub seems to suggest that minimplants can refer to things other than minidental implants. Suggest merge minimplants (should be minimplant-singular anyway) into implant leaving redirect; and merge mini dental implant into dental implant leaving redirect also by the way- looks like this has been proposed since 2011 with no action. Lesion (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as purely promotional of a commercial neologism. -- Scray (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2013 (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.