Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slipped disc

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 Redirected to spinal disc herniation. No actual deletion seems necessary here; RFD would undoubtedly agree that this is a useful redirect, and the edit history needs to be maintained behind the redirect for GFDL compliance. There have been claims that this article should instead be a disambiguation page, but no sources have been provided to indicate there is anything to disambiguate between. Discussion regarding shortcomings in the target article or possible needs for disambiguation should be discussed at talk:Spinal disc herniation before reverting the redirect. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 03:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slipped disc

Slipped disc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article should have been deleted when a new article (Spinal disc herniation) was created to replace it. The creation was successful and included all relevant material from the Slipped disc article. Unfortunately it was not deleted, and was only replaced with a redirect. Please delete Slipped disc. Fyslee 11:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The material that was relevant about the slipped disc article was how the term was often applied and mis-applied. None of this has been incorporated into the new article. The term "slipped disc" is not even mentioned until quite late on in the article. --Rebroad 12:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment This is not a normal edit war, but an article that should have been deleted, but was only replaced with a redirect. The article should be deleted, and only a redirect left in place. -- Fyslee 12:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Please vote Redirect rather than keep. -- Fyslee 13:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Keep the redirect, not the article. -- Fyslee 12:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. AfD is not the place to solve an edit war. The term is a common one and very likely to be searched. The currently suggested merge and redirect is the correct solution. Nuttah68 12:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment it does not need deleting, it is a valid search term. Nuttah68 12:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment That's why a redirect is appropriate. The concept itself is very misleading, and therefore it doesnt' deserve an article. The new article explains the problem. -- Fyslee 12:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The new article didn't mention the term "slipped disc" which is the layman's term, not did it even mention that it was a medical condition, nor did it mention the spine!! The article for slipped disc is far more useful for the layman, who can then be directed (not automatically!) to the correct medical term. --Rebroad 12:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • "vandalism" (not my words) here - the page has been blanked twice now by Fyslee. Please could someone explain to him/her that this is not acceptable behaviour since the discussion over deletion is still ongoing. --Rebroad 12:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Vandalism is a very serious charge. You are not assuming good faith. You are the one who deleted the redirect, thereby activating an obsolete article that had inadvertently never been deleted as it should have been. I have only restored it to the condition in which you found it. I am assuming good faith by assuming you did not understand the long history of this article. -- Fyslee 12:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment The new article does mention slipped disc. -- Fyslee 12:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - "slipped disc" is the term most people are familiar with, and is an important disambiguation page pointing people to the correct terminology, and also the mis-uses of the term. --Rebroad 12:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment That's why a redirect is appropriate. The concept itself is very misleading, and therefore it doesn't deserve an article. The new article explains the problem. This one is not a disambiguation page. -- Fyslee 12:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It's because there exists the term "slipped disc" that it needs an article. If it is redirected to another article, you will still need to address the fact that the term exists, and that it is sometimes applied inappropriately. --Rebroad 12:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The fact is addressed in the new article! Please admit your claim above is incorrect. It is mentioned and explained in the new article. -- Fyslee 12:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
        • From the article:
          • Some of the terms commonly used to describe the condition include herniated disc, prolapsed disc, ruptured disc, and the misleading expression "slipped disc." Other terms that are closely related include disc protrusion, bulging disc, pinched nerve, sciatica, disc disease, disc degeneration, degenerative disc disease, and black disc.
          • The popular term "slipped disc" is quite misleading, as an intervertebral disc, being tightly sandwiched between two vertebrae, cannot actually "slip," "slide," or even get "out of place." The disc is actually grown together with the adjacent vertebrae and can be squeezed, stretched, and twisted, all in small degrees. It can also be torn, ripped, herniated, and degenerated, but it cannot "slip."
        • It is covered! -- Fyslee 12:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
          • I would only agree that a re-direct is appropriate if you can demonstrate that "slipped disc" is used to refer to only a herniated disc, and never some other sort of spinal problem. Based on the opening sentence of the slipped disc article, this does not appear to be the case. --Rebroad 12:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
            • I didn't notice this comment. If there are other uses of the term, then they can either be discussed in the new article -- Spinal disc herniation -- or a real disambiguation page can be used to replace this one. Whatever happens, the contents of this one have already been merged, and the problematic nature of the term "slipped disc" explained there. That would be the logical place to do it, but I'm open to discussing it. I have left several messages on talk page. Why aren't you discussing this there? -- Fyslee 13:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, "Slipped disc" is a very common term people refer the medical condition as. Yes redirect it to the other article by its correct name. AFD is not a place to solve edit wars, discuss such things on talk pages not AFDs. Terence Ong 12:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe a re-direct would be a bad idea, since the term "slipped disc" has been used on articles (and elsewhere on the internet) to refer to medical conditions other than the page to which the re-direct is being recommended. --Rebroad 12:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I believe a better place to discuss this might be Talk:Slipped_disc, since it appears the previous merge was done without a concensus being reached. --Rebroad 12:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT ABOUT CONFUSION Do not vote keep for the article, only for a redirect. The article should be deleted. This vote is not about the redirect, which of course should be the only thing left in place, so vote delete. -- Fyslee 12:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee, I think from past experience, that people tend to vote Keep, Delete, or re-direct based on which solution they think most appropriate. The fact that people are voting keep indicates to me that the article should remain as an article, rather than as a re-direct to a different article, which addresses a different subject. --Rebroad 12:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The new article was created by including all the content from this one, and adding much more new content. I (a Physical Therapist) and Dematt (a chiropractor) did most of the work, and other medical personnel, including MDs, helped. It has been well-accepted. The term slipped disc is a misleading expression for the subject of the new article. It does not describe a "different subject." -- Fyslee 12:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Fyslee, can you please explain why the article needs to be deleted and redirected rather than simply redirecting it? Also, you keep saying it "should have been deleted". Should have been according to who? Was there a previous AfD? I don't understand why the article can't be kept under a redirect, particularly if, as others above say, it includes additional information that might be useful in the future. Thanks, Sarah 13:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
That's basically what I'd like to see, except that User:Rebroad has removed the redirect that has been in place since August 30, 2006. A redirected article should not be edited. Normally it's deleted, ASAIK. -- Fyslee 13:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I've never seen that done. Normally, the article is just redirected; there really is no need to delete the history. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 13:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Fine with me. Just as long as the redirect is left in place, and the article isn't edited. This article hadn't been edited since August 30, 2006, since all the editors back then -- PT, DC, MD -- all agreed a new one would be better. The new article is much better, and a well-accepted improvement here. Articles that are turned into redirects should not be edited or revived, or even linked to directly. A way to use the term, if one has no qualms about perpetuating the use of a misleading term, is to do this:
The term has a long history of misuse, and forms the basis of a billion dollar industry. -- Fyslee 14:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
In that case, Fyslee, I suggest we simply redirect the page and keep the old article in the history. If Rebroad feels there is material in the old article that needs to be merged into the new one, he is welcome to do so. I think everyone but Rebroad has qualified their "keeps" as redirects so there seem to be consensus here to redirect. If the other party refuses to accept that, we can look at protecting the redirect. But unless there's a particular reason to delete, I think redirecting should be sufficient. Sarah 14:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Re-direct per Fyslee - These are synonymous terms. There's nothing wrong with Reload adding information to the Spinal disc herniation page to clarify information for the layperson if that is the what is needed. Comment - I was one of the ones involved in the original decision to merge Slipped disc and Disc herniation, similar to Upset stomach being redirected to Indigestion. At the time, everyone was happy with the merge. --Dematt 14:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment that is not the best example as in that case I'd say the redirect from Upset stomach to Indigestion is wrong and very unhelpful. An upset stomach covers a number of conditions of which indigestion is only one.Nuttah68 15:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - definitely agree. Thanks Nuttah68, that was the first example I found. Hopefully you got the idea that the "lay" term is redirected to a "medical" term. --Dematt 15:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy with that as long as someone answers the question that seems to be at the heart of this. Can you confirm that the term slipped disc is used only to mean Disc herniation? If it is then the redirect is fine However, if slipped disc can refer to more than one condition a simple redirect will be no more helpful than the current upset stomach article. In this case we need an article at slipped disc explaining how it can refer to more than one condition and linking to the appropriate articles. Nuttah68 15:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
That is a very good point and deserves consideration. I would expound by asking if someone can come up with another condition that cannot be covered in the Spinal disc herniation, then I would agree. --Dematt 16:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem at the moment is that not many people will have heard of terms other than "slipped disk", and therefore a) won't search for the other terms, and b) won't understand what other articles mean unless they use this term. I think it was going OTT to change all articles referring to slipped disk to a term that no one would be familiar with. The best way to educate people as to what a slipped disk is is to continue using this terminology but to explain what it means and also what it doesn't mean. Uses of words change over time. For example, "gay" no longer means what it used to. It should not be up to the medical profession alone to decide the future of the meaning of "slipped disk" especially if it is a term the medical profession themselves chose NOT to use. --Rebroad 15:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Rebroad, maybe you misunderstand. That is the reason for a re-direct; so that if someone searches for Slipped disc it will go to the article that covers what they are really looking for. The medical profession stopped using the term because it misled people and anything that would be in an article with that name would be lay language and unhelpful - all they would be doing is repeating that it is misleading and link them to Spinal disc herniation. They don't need to know what the other words mean. The article that they are re-directed to explains that well, I think. But you are welcome to improve it if you think it needs it. --Dematt 16:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect and protect. (Also change all links which were recently edited to point to Slipped disc to point back to the original target, but that would have to be done on an article-by-article basis.) All information from the August redirect was included in the target article, and it should redirect. Any "new" information should be in the target article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect and protect per Arthur Rubin, with note on talk page as to why redirect is proteced. The merge already ocurred; links pointed to the new, accurate article. There was no reason to return the old "Slipped disc" article and change the redirects, as that article has been superceded with one under the accurate term. As far as "other meanings" given in the intro to "Slipped disc", the only ones I see which do not mean Herniated disc are pinched nerve, sciatica and degenerative disc disease - which are not cited, and not even in the See also of the article, so that seems to be very bad editing rather than a valid concern. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect then all searchers for "slipped disc" will get to the right place, and that article can be made excellent. Actually, I'd collapse it even further, putting disc protrusion and herniation into one article. Rewriting as a fork was/would be a retrograde step. Midgley 21:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per nomOo7565 22:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect and protect reading Arthur and KillerChihuahua's explanation makes this sound a no brainer. I think a delete is to be avoided since slipped disc is common terminology. The presense of a redirect has an educational component, in that the correct term is then discovered rather than it appearing there is no article on the subject. David D. (Talk) 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. There does seem to be a lot of confusion here. I do not support there being two articles, Spinal disc herniation and Slipped disc. Anything in the latter that has not already been added to the former should be merged into the former. The article should then be made a redirect with its history intact. I think protecting it might well be a good idea if "merge and redirect" is the final conclusion to seal that conclusion in place. --Bduke 01:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the correct medical term Shot info 10:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect It should be restored to its condition before this debacle was started by the removal of the long-standing redirect. -- Fyslee 13:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • redirect per all. Protect it if there is any inclination towards slippage. Bucketsofg 18:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. It was nominated only because it did slip, and Rebroad has not indicated that he would abide by the concensus stated here, as he has not abided by the concensus established in August. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect IFF the old article contains factually inaccurate material that could spell trouble. Simple redirect otherwise. We don't protect unless reversion becomes disruptive (3RR) or ignores prior consensus. ~ trialsanderrors 22:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge any relevant information, redirect after merge and protect the redirect. The term slipped disc is useful, but the article needs to redirect to the correct one, otherwise the two together form a POV fork. WHy is this not a simple procedural matter instaed of an AfD? Fiddle Faddle 00:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, redirect, protect per above. I see no useful information on this page that could not be covered by the pages it wikilinks to, and I have no idea why people are pushing POV over something this trivial. - Chardish 08:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment -- This article's contents have already been merged with the contents of Lumbar disc herniation, to create a third article that replaced them both. They are listed at the top here. There was consensus then (August 2006), and the new article has been well received. All that needs to be done now is to restore the long-standing redirect and protect it. The problematic nature of the term slipped disc is covered in the new article - Spinal disc herniation. -- Fyslee 11:03, 2 February 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.