Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SUPERLASIK

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (and merge or redirect). Eugene van der Pijll 02:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The original version of this article was outright spam [1] and I cut a few corners and speedied it. It should have been nominated for VfD instead. A later version by the same anon author was substantially shorter, much more to the point, and not really spammy. It was nevertheless speedied by another admin on the grounds that it was a recreation of a previously speedied article. Since the original speedy wasn't strictly justified, I have restored it and am nominating it for VfD. -- Curps 00:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• NeutralChanged vote, see below. Google shows hits for this term... I am not sure if it is a widely used term and a widely used procedure or just one surgeon's procedure and trademark. -- Curps 00:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I've had regular LASIK surgery. Good stuff. This, on the other hand, is advertising spam. If it can withstand a POV-ectomy, I'm for keep. As it is, I vote delete. - Lucky 6.9 01:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to LASIK or the list of procedures in eye surgery Tonywalton 01:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to LASIK. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC) Changed vote, see below Dpbsmith (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Jaxl | talk 01:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Good idea. Changing to merge. - Lucky 6.9 01:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Weird: googling on SuperLASIK without language restrictions yields 1,430 hits, and the first pageful, at least, are mostly in non-Latin-character alphabets: Russian and some Asian pictographic language I can't identify. Restricting the language to English yields only 48 hits (of which Google shows only 9 because "we have omitted some entries very similar to the 9 already displayed.") It suggests searching on "Super LASIK," with a space, which, when searched in quotes for exact phrase, displays a similar phenomenon. It yields 598 hits in all languages and only 145 in English. I don't really know that that means but I don't recall seeing anything like that before and it seems odd. I suggest that if the article is made a redirect to LASIK, Super LASIK should also redirect to LASIK. If the article is not made into a redirect, it should be moved to Super LASIK. I think. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A search in "Proquest Research Library," which indexes 2000 journals including Science, Nature, Archives of Ophthalmology, etc. yields 475 articles on "LASIK", none on "SuperLASIK", none on exact phrase "Super LASIK", none on "EpiLASIK," and none on exact phrase "Epi LASIK". Search is case-insensitive BTW, so it's not that. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes there are a lot of hits for "SuperLasik" or "Super Lasik" or whatever. But is there actually such a thing as a "super lasik" procedure distinct from the regular Lasik procedure, or are these just trademarked names used by individual surgeons for their own regular-Lasik services? Is the Russian "super lasik" the same thing as the Austrian "super lasik"? Does SuperLASIK really stand for "superficial Lasik"? According to the Austrian guy [2], it stands for "Laser in situ Keratomileusis"... but our LASIK article says that's what ordinary LASIK stands for. So it seems that "SuperLASIK" is just a fancy trade name for LASIK, as far as I can tell. -- Curps 01:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Something is definitely odd here. I did some Google site searches on the site http://www.lasikinstitute.org/ which is the big promotional educational resource on LASIK sponsored by surgeons who perform it. Or something like that. Searches on "SuperLASIK", exact phrase "Super LASIK", "EpiLASIK", and exact phrase "Epi LASIK" yield no hits on this site. Not only should SUPERLASIK and Super LASIK redirect to LASIK, but we ought to be very damn careful what we actually say about "SuperLASIK" in the LASIK article because something about this just doesn't feel right to me. I am not convinced it is a recognized term in U. S. eye surgery. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree with Dpbsmith that something's wrong here. Given unverifiability of just what exactly it is, this should not be here. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to LASIK, no merge until/unless someone comes up with better evidence that "SUPERLASIK" or "Super LASIK" is an established, accepted term for a form of eye surgery in English-speaking countries. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to LASIK, no merge until/unless verified (as per above). - Mike Rosoft 13:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, no merge. -- Curps 13:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, no merge. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Dpbsmith's findings -- Presnell 18:38, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and even the redirect seems questionable if it cannot be determined if this is a real medical term. --DavidConrad 23:47, 13 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.