Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pre-chopper

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-chopper

Pre-chopper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

A stub with no independent sources. A quick Google search revealed nothing more than sales websites with this product. There are some videos of this product in use, and there is a "news" article that mostly reports what the creator said. I do not see any significant and independent coverage of this medical tool in reliable sources. William2001^(talk) 22:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. William2001^(talk) 22:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable and not a good quality article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Weak keep, the introduction of this paper says: The prechop technique, first described by Akahoshi in 1998, revolutionized the chop technique in cataract surgery. Several papers discuss this technique and derivations [1] – Thjarkur (talk) 11:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Þjarkur, I'm still unsure about this article meeting WP:GNG, which states that sources should be secondary. It seems to me that most of the papers are primary sources? Perhaps a redirect to a cataract surgery-related article would do as the article barely contains anything for a merge? William2001^(talk) 22:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  A few more mentions here: [2][3] and in this opthalmology textbook [4]. The paper by the inventor would be primary, but later independent academic papers which summarize previous knowledge in their introduction are secondary-ish although not the best. This could redirect to Phacoemulsification § Surgical technique, but merging it would give undue weight to this niche technique. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:55, 3 December 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.