Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disc biacuplasty

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. Nom withdrawn. PeaceNT (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disc biacuplasty

Disc biacuplasty (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable alternative treatment, probably written by the owner of the publicity firm of the sole provider. Docg 22:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC) withdraw in view of re-write.--Docg 23:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete; clear COI [1], and no notability for the "treatment". — Coren (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC) (amended, see below) — Coren (talk)
  • Speedy Delete as spam of the worst sort - astroturfing. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Carefully read WP:CSD#G11 and WP:NOT, and see how this fits the bill. Bearian (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Disc biacuplasty is a procedure that has been developed by Baylis Medical as a safer more efficient alternative to IDET (a patented treatment using heat -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervertebral_disc_annuloplasty ) or surgery. Disc biacuplasty has received (just like IDET) its own reimbursement code and has been approved worldwide by health organizations. As of now, about 300 patients have received the disc biacuplasty treatment. Doctors who performs an IDET procedure (or annuloplasty) uses a proprietary RF probe manufactured by Smith & Nephew and no others; doctors who performs this new procedure, namely "disc biacuplasty", also uses a proprietary RF probe, the TransDiscal system probes manufactured by Baylis Medical.
Several publications have been published in medical journals on the value and efficiency of the disc biacuplasty procedure and signed by world medical pain experts such as DR. Nagy Mekhail, md, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation; Dr Michael Gofeld, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center; Dr Jeffrey D. Petersohn, md, Pain Care Clinic; Dr Paul H. Dreyfuss, Washington Interventional Spine Associates; Dr Steven L. Simmons, University of Texas; etc.
Is IDET astroturfing?
In reference to this link (COI [2]), this site is about my past personal life (it has not been updated for the past 10 years, I think) and in all transparency, I am employed by Baylis Medical as Associate, Communications.--Lucdesaulniers (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and re-write. There is one pubmed hit and some other independent coverage [3], but definitely a re-write using reliable sources. WLU (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I re-wrote the page basically ignoring and deleting everything that was there before except the picture and using the most reliable sources I could find. There's only one pubmed, but there is a conference abstract, an e-publication and a news release by the American College of Radiology. That should get around the COI problems and I think there's enough there to pass notability. WLU (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I commend WLU's work on this. I've heard of this procedure before, even if not with this particular name. I would have said delete if not for WLU's removal of the COI problem. --Nehwyn (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep; the sources make some sort of sense, now, and the marketing technobabble has been excised. I still think this is just not quite notable enough, but it's a decent stub and can stick around for a while. — Coren (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep after WLUs non-biased rewrite. Lucdesaulniers (talk · contribs) is cautioned, together with his employer, to adhere to Wikipedia's WP:COI guidelines. JFW | T@lk 20:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has sources and seems to be neutrally presented (now). --Coppertwig (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


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.