Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Root analogue dental implant

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. Consensus is not to delete -> default keep. Merge can be discussed on the talkpage. Tone 14:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Root analogue dental implant

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no need for a separate article for each type of implant. Tony85poon (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:OVERLAP: There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Kindly read Idea–expression divide. Despite conventional implant and RAI being different expressions, the idea is the same: to give him/her a tooth that looks good. He/she does NOT want embarrassing dentures (the joke is that elderly people often leave their false teeth behind at hotel while checking out). Tony85poon (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into dental implant. A loose noose (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Relatively new, not commonly used and should be merged into dental implant, there is no need for a separate article for each type Gsingh (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, 2008 is kinda relatively new, if you want to delete the article badly. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to separate articles badly, then I DARE you try to separate Saline implants and Silicone gel implants. Come on! Back in 1940, 3D printing has not yet been invented, hence the scientists could not do RAI. I guess the inventors borrowed the idea of mouth-bone-screwing from orthopedics. The article of 3D printing has a big size of 114,449 bytes, therefore 3D modeling, 3D printing processes, Applications of 3D printing, 3D printed firearms et cetera. Management of HIV/AIDS has a big size of 103,886 bytes, therefore HIV-protease, non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase and nucleoside and nucleotide reverse-transcriptase inhibitors. Dental implant is not even 100,000 bytes. Tony85poon (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep separate - this is not a yet another type of implant: this is a considerably different class of implants: the one not based on screws, and the article is large. Obviously this is not an AfD subject since ["root analogue" implant -wikipedia] google search provides THOUSANDS of hits, with many overview articles, i.e., reliable secondary sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 05:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into dental implant. This looks like a decently sized article but when the unrefenced content is removed, together with content not specifically about this type of implant, then it's clear that a seperate article is not necessary.--Pontificalibus 07:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, but with unreferenced content referenced and expanded from numerous overview articles, the article just as well may become larger than the targert atricle. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There's already a merge discussion and so this seems to be forum shopping. The main article about dental implants is 93K and so it's reasonable to consider splitting the topic for the various types. This particular technique of making a facsimile in the shape of the original tooth seems to be the oldest one, going back thousands of years, and so is a natural and reasonable sub-topic. Andrew D. (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, in this case forum shopping makes sense (but venue is wrong), because no one seems to join the merge discussion for a long time. I did; after being "shopped". Did you? Staszek Lem (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- 93k is small, 2018 in paleontology is 490k, FIVE TIMES bigger. No one has asked you to expand the RAI article. Don't throw in the nitty-gritty details. Perhaps add more pictures. Tony85poon (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but articles like 2018 in paleontology are in desparate need of splitting to make them a reasonable size. Remember that not everyone in the world has ultra-fast broadband. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made a plain-text version at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Tony85poon/sandbox&oldid=880096527 with 7813 words. If I "remove unreferenced and marketroid stuff", it can even be shorter. My point is that the merged article is still within reasonable length. Tony85poon (talk) 09:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The nominator is not asking for deletion, but for merging, about which a discussion was started some time ago but never closed. I made the obvious point when I contested WP:PROD deletion, but the nominator's reply flew in the face of our copyright policy, which requires the original contributors to be credited with their edits rather than someone who copied the material somewhere else. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than deleting, I cannot think of a feasible solution that can speed up that merger discussion. Let me give an example so that you guys understand. Once upon a time, I saw 2 Chinese Articles about Deception Island (coz the translation of the Island's name had two Chinese versions). I inserted the {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} tags, but nothing happened. Then, I nominated 1 for deletion, and the Chinese Wikipedia administrator approved the deletion of 1 article + removed the "merge tag" in the remaining article. People do take deletion requests seriously, https://zh.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=%E8%BF%AA%E5%A1%9E%E6%99%AE%E9%81%9C%E5%B3%B6&oldid=52256775 is the evidence. Who are the policymakers? May I communicate with them? Taking it to the next level would be great. Tony85poon (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You and I and every other editor are the policymakers, who decide policy by consensus, except for a very few cases, usually those with legal implications, where the owners of this web site, the Wikimedia Foundation, impose policy. The Chinese Wikipedia may have different procedures from the English Wikipedia, but here the procedure to invite more participation at a discussion is WP:RFC, or to request closure of a discussion is to post at WP:AN. It is generally frowned upon to start a deletion discussion when what you are asking for is not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - "not everyone in the world has ultra-fast broadband" is great-thinking! I went ahead and reduced the size of prosthesis too (before the reduction, the size was 94.5k); WP:AN#Request to resolve both Hopefully I am using the correct procedure to close the 2 discussions, cheers. Tony85poon (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2019 (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.