Talk:Nankali post system

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 December 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Ali nankali (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

This post system is such a bad idea: it essentially removes even more tooth structure from the damaged tooth and further weakens it: not something I would do to myself.... Compared to a "conventional" post core system it is way more destructive and that little ridge of remaining dentine will be weak with a negative effect on the resistance to fractures like vertical root fracture Ashley Payne (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ashley,

This work is confirmed by three universities with its all documentation and observation within some years. I appreciate your imagination about removing tooth structure; yet there is a strong scientific calculation for this post that proves its efficiency.

I am not doing any business on this post and core but I know that in some places they are manufacturing the bur and even there are some dentists who are doing their masters on this post in different places. However, I am very thankfull for your comment. Special Regards, --Ali nankali (talk) 11:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated this article for deletion. It puts forth a concept that is largely if not completely rejected -- restoring teeth that exhibit vertical/oblique fractures that extend onto the root surface. Your sources are terribly inappropriate -- they consist of you, Dr. Nankali, promoting your invention, and the few minor awards it has won. Nothing -- not intracoronal nor extracoronal restorations, not endodontic therapy, not implant dentistry -- can claim 100% success; the fact that you state this in your article makes it read more like an infomercial than anything else. Your primary intra-article links direct to pages written in a foreign language, dubious support if that's all you can muster. You have three great diagrams, but they probably come from your patent application/master's thesis, so I'd expect them to be wonderful; your photo, on the other hand, looks like a still shot from a video. Your sources are 2/4 from yourself and references are 6/10 from yourself as well, and there is nothing published in a well respected, international journal of endodontics, prosthodontics or general dentistry. Seems like complete self-promotion, not to mention how poorly written it is, suggesting you put it together as quickly as you possibly could, without thinking it through (fitting in nicely with the utter lack of proper sources). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is legitimate to talk about this post and the construction of this article is ok. However What is stopping every brand and patent and variation of post having its own article paving the way for a wikipedia catalogue. I suggest that there be a main post page, and this just be a brief mention in a section about variations in post design or something; that is a vote for deletion but suggest a small mention in the post page. Bouncingmolar (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I considered the wikipedia as an encyclopaedia available on the Web and we are speaking only about an existing object. All articles related to this post are peer viewed and published in respected journals in Russian language for both endodontics, prosthodontics. The work is already done and it is finished therefore nothing to promote. Anybody can check the work with the Scientific Board of the National Medical University where the work approved by 13 professors including endodontists and prosthodontists.--Ali nankali (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this article is perfectly referenced and well written. What we ought to take into consideration is the fact that this person is putting a piece of work across to us all as an educational information not an advertisement of any sort. His references seem to come mostly from a Ukrainian background which does not make his work less scientific or accurate. The simple fact that it was viewed and accepted in three different medical universities is superior enough. --Nn1343 (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "the Ukraine" to "Ukraine"

There are two uses of "the Ukraine" instead of "Ukraine" in this article. They are both in the names of organizations. If these are just English translations of official names they could be changed. If these are official translations of their names by these organizations, the organizations themselves must initiate the change if they desire it. I have found: "Supreme Attestation Commission of Ukraine" instead of "Supreme Attestation Commission of the Ukraine" on a web site at SPIE Membership: SPIE so I will change it. For "Dental Scientific Board of the Ukraine" I am in doubt if the name is an official English translation or not, so I will leave it. If "Supreme Attestation Commission of the Ukraine" was the name under which Nespriadco V.P. (2004) Naukovi SVIT was published, I could still be in error. --Fartherred (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I have never heard or read of this post system in any major Endodontics textbook. I think this should be nominated for deletion, this is not a notable article. Any inputs? Gsingh (talk) 05:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nankali post system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303073810/http://nmu.edu.ua/e5.php to http://www.nmu.edu.ua/e5.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505045946/http://nmu.edu.ua/a1-1.php to http://www.nmu.edu.ua/a1-1.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]