Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serdev suture

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 no consensus. There are good arguments on all sides. It is quite clear that the article has many sources, and that a large proportion of them are self-published. However, whether the remaining secondary sources are notable has not really been resolved in this discussion. On the delete side, Szzuk's comments are basically WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:USELESS. On the merge side, Exit2DOS's concern about the lack of articles on other types of suture does not hold up; WP:WAX. On the keep side, Malarman's comments do not really show why this should be kept, Tatsel1's comments are incomprehensible. Overall, a pretty balanced debate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serdev suture

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

Medical technique for which it is impossible to establish notability for inclusion. The technique certainly exists, but I don't see that it is notable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

***Does that article really count when Serdev is the managing editor of the journal? Narayanese (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Even if it is in a peer-reviewed medical journal or a widely-used textbook, What would make this method superior to any other? I assume all other methods would have the same peer-reviewed medical journal or a widely-used textbook status. Would any particular suture's use be simply dependent upon the body ___location, skin type and the "customary" one used by the particular Dr.? (IAND, prolly more variables ...but... you see my point?) I cant see what would make any 1 method more WP:Notable than another? and this Article does not explain it to me. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 03:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • More to the point, is this method used by other plastic surgeons? Or are other plastic surgeons discussing it in journals or medical books etc? If yes then I think that it should be kept or at least merged (somewhere, not sure where yet:=]). If not then I lean towards deleting.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per the interest.Serdev suture Keep creativeness. Keep the free development of medicine out of the context of plastic surgery societies and plastic surgery journals. Tatsel1 (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you or somebody please explain to me what the above means? I am sorry but it makes no sense to me in the context of this discussion (or any other context I can imagine). Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 16:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there are enough references to its use, and even to it becoming a standard procedure. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Article on an unproven medical treatment that is wholly made up of primary sources. No encyclopedic value in this state and puts readers in real danger of being misinformed. Seems intended as an advertisement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Strongly Keep" The article is well referenced and the author is indeed notable. It is germane that in the article "Economic Analysis Of The Future Growth Of Cosmetic Surgery Procedures” (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Jun;121(6):404e-412 Liu TS Miller TA. Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center), it is noted that of cosmetic procedures performed by plastic surgeon members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) in 2005, 66 % were non-surgical. The article also projected that by

2015, 88 %of cosmetic procedures performed by these member surgeons will be non-surgical. The authors concluded that “If current growth rates continue into the next decade, the future demand in cosmetic surgery will be driven largely by non-surgical procedures.” Professor Serdev is notably in the forefront of this trend. In this regard his techniques have certainly been cited in medical text books-for example see "Simplified Facial Rejuvenation(Hardcover) by Melvin A. Shiffman, Sid J. Mirrafati" Hardcover: 658 pages Publisher: Springer; 1st edition (December 12, 2007) pages 267,271,272,286. Professor Serdev's the subject matter is interesting and provides information to the public accessing this encyclopedia about a contemporary but established (albeit minimally invasive) cosmetic surgery technique. One must not lose sight that "Wikipedia's intent is to have articles that cover existing knowledge, not create new knowledge (original research)." Accordingly it is entirely subjective and incorrect for some editors (possibly including competing surgeons) to deny the notability of this method when it is widely disseminated on the www and can there be seen to be used by many other practitioners of cosmetic surgery around the globe. One should also not lose sight of the function of an encyclopedia-"Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race in the future years to come.[2] Diderot -(Denis Diderot and Jean le Rond d'Alembert Encyclopédie. University of Michigan Library:Scholarly Publishing Office and DLXS.)Malarman (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article is fluff from primary sources. If someone wants to use the one source and only source that can be found on google news and google books, a paragraph about this subject, go for it. But Wikipedia is not for promotion and fluff about paid membership in "Who's Who 2009". A successful plastic surgeon should have no problem paying for google ads and setting up a promotional website. We're not a webhost and shouldn't be advertising business and promote profitable enterprises with content that isn't sourced. This article is totally unencyclopedic and needs to be deleted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" Professor Serdev is cosmetic surgeon-not a plastic surgeon. His contribution is in the field of minimally invasive cosmetic surgery (although he has published in the past on burns surgery in the plastic/military surgery literature). The article appears to be informative in intent rather than promotional. An encyclopedia is theoretically supposed to be a source of information to the general public and the subject article has the necessary authenticity to adequately fulfill that criterion. Claims of "fluff" are unreasonable and serve to diminish the genuine contribution of this surgeon’s innovation(s). This editorial forum should not serve as an opportunity for some princes of darkness to disengage the public.Malarman (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:
  1. All the sources are effectively self published, apart from the dump of Google added recently.
  2. User:Malaman and User:Tatsell seem to be SPAs.
Rich Farmbrough, 21:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I think this will boil down to whether and article in the International Journal of Cosmetic Surgery meets the guidelines for notability. If this is a peer-reviewed journal, then that seems to indicate that the technique is notable to cosmetic surgeons and ultimately to their patients. The journal is the record of the International Academy of Cosmetic Surgery and the International Board of Cosmetic Surgery. Vulture19 (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Name a suture that does not satisfy that particular requirement?!?! Every suture method would have some peer-reviewed medical journal or a widely-used textbook mentioning it, as has been stated prior in this AFD. The real question that needs satisfying is Is this suture method Notable beyond other methods ?. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "International Journal of Cosmetic Surgery" does not appear to be an RS. The organisations it is related too are not recognised by RCS, although based in the UK and providing fellowship for a fee and exam to those with experience in "ginacology" among other disciplines. Rich Farmbrough, 04:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge - I have waited til now to see how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikolay P. Serdev would close. I agree with the Nom that "...it is impossible to establish notability for inclusion." Until such time as the suture method itself gains irrefutable Notability, it should be upmerged into the Article of its creator, with a possible redirect from this Title. That way there is no loss of information, and the possibility remains for recreation, once consensus agrees. At this point I can see no clear consensus either way. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 01:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there there are no indications that the International Journal of Cosmetic Surgery is peer-reviewed and recognised. And ChildofMidnight has a point. Narayanese (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2009 (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/Serdev_suture&oldid=1266209066"