Talk:Percutaneous discectomy

Recent changes leading to redirection

Recently an editor removed this entire article and turned it into a redirection to the main page on discectomy on the basis of all the references used being "spam".

I just added part of the page back until we decide in the talk how to cover PELD. Our options include:

• Restore the PELD article as it was before but add higher quality sources
• Merge a few sentences on it into the main Discectomy article (would need to remove the "see also" link there)

Please provide pros/cons on this. Thank you, Myoglobin (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there a way to "page" experts in spinal surgery (a la Figure 1's paging system) interested in helping with this? Myoglobin (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The article used to look like this

Please explain on what planet the following refs are a) not spam and b) comply with WP:MEDRS

• Novaspecialtysurgery.com
• Paindoc4u.com
• Healing-and-health.com

If you look at the edit in which Ditsworth, DA Book Chapter - Decision Making in Spinal Care - Chapter 61; Copyright 2013 by Thieme: thieme.com was added, you will see that this was refspam. I dealt with the same user on other articles.

That leaves one ref, the NICE one which is not about this, exactly.

This entire page was a disgusting piece of industrial waste.

I agree that an actual WP article about this topic would be valuable. What was here, was the opposite of valuable. If you want to build good content here, please feel free to do so. Restoring unsourced/badly sourced industrial waste based on what you think should be here, is not OK. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)