Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visualase

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 delete. Consensus is that the company itself is not notable. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Visualase

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

Non-notable company. Only press release[1] and Wiki entry[2] sources found. Kkmurray (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The very reference 3 in the article is to an FDA statement that the device is not sufficiently distinctive to require approval. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I've found numerous sources talking about the use of Visualase, and its advantages over traditional ablative methods. It's also mentioned in the article on Ablative brain surgery, in the "Methods" section. That said, the cited source does not specifically mention Visualase, however, it can be confirmed that that's what they're using. I'd add this

"link" (PDF). to the citations, but I'm still pretty new to editing on here, and don't really know how. I can't even remember my username that I created a few years back, but never really used. I highly recommend reading that article, though. It provides significant rationale for notability of Visualase. Also, it's simply very interesting. While the doctor admits that, being a user of the technology, he's close to it, that does not invalidate his statements regarding the facts. There are a lot of other discussions regarding Visualase that can be found on that site.

As for the device not being sufficiently distinctive to require approval, that just means that the usage technique, in terms of how it's inserted into the body, is basically the same, so it doesn't require additional approvals, but the product itself is radically different, and it allows the use of much smaller burr holes in the skull, to minimize long-term impacts. Smaller holes in the skull is a major development. Additionally, it allows real-time monitoring of the procedure using MRI, which can greatly improve results and safety. Forgive me, I don't know how to keep these paragraphs indented.173.88.113.201 (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues here: one is the notability of the company Visualase and the other is the notability of the MRI guided laser ablation technique that is the basis of their product. I don't see multiple non-trivial cites that establish the notability of Visualase, Inc. the company. There are many literature cites for MRI guided laser ablation, which – along with MRI guided radio-frequency, microwave, and ultrasound ablation – is an established surgical procedure (here's a review from earlier this year [3]). Expanding the ablative brain surgery to include a discussion of these techniques is a excellent idea, but doesn't directly relate to the notability of Visualase, Inc. --Kkmurray (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A vehement defense by an IP with no edit history other than one edit to the article in question makes me wonder if there is a WP:COI here. If the IP has edited the article from another account or has a vested interest in it he or she should say so per WP:DISCUSSAFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 21:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing the independent, reliable sources needed to show notability, If the IP has "found numerous sources talking about the use of Visualase" then perhaps soem could be listed fo rus to evaluate. Meters (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 17:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Not notable per above. Only "keep" vote is probably from the original author.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:15, 20 November 2012 (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.