Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limb lengthening methods

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 redirect to Distraction osteogenesis. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Limb lengthening methods

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

This page is mostly unsourced WP:OR, and contains a great deal of badly sourced promotion. What was not badly sourced, was merged to Distraction osteogenesis way back in February 2016. First an IP and then a named user has continued to restore this awful thing, which should not exist as it duplicates existing content, and what doesn't, violates WP policy. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I read a news article on this procedure from ABC News: Leg Lengthening Patient Hopes to Grow By 3.3 Inches With Painful Procedure. I don't think an encyclopedia should promote a risky and painful medical procedure that is commonly done for cosmetic reasons. Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That the procedure is dangerous is not a valid reason for deletion. In fact, that is a reason for having an article so the dangers can be documented. I have no opinion on whether or not a separate page should be maintained, but the history must be preserved per Siuenti and WP:OVERLAP SpinningSpark 18:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redirect plausible search term, has been merged, relevant content at target, protect no need for a separate article Siuenti (씨유엔티) 09:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Distraction osteogenesis. Plausible search term but nothing salvageable that is not already at the redirect target page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as has been attempted multiple times. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:10, 28 April 2017 (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.