Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical slang (2nd nomination)

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The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn with clear consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medical slang[edit]

Prior AfD consensus was split evenly. Since then no development has been made on keeping this as an encyclopedic article and not just a random collection of information WP:NOT. Given the lack of sources and the high possibility of there being copy vio issues and the likely amount of original research that went into determining was is "slang" acronyms and terms, it should be deleted. Mbisanz (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WithdrawnMbisanz (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The prior afd consensus wasn't split evenly. The Keeps and their reasoning outweighed the Deletes. Moreover, two of the Deletes stated their reasons as "per above," and the "above" switched their votes from Delete to Keep!--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO, WP:NOT#DICT, etc. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, slang guide, etc. I agree with the nom that this is also somewhat WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, article has been worked on some now and is more than just dicdefs and such. It is now decently sourced and all that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a dictionary article. Please actually read it. And there are sources already cited in the article from which improvements can be made. AFD is not cleanup. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it was when I read it... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs a bit of work, but an interesting and useful article. 203.220.13.61 (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect your vote, but I wonder what "work" it is your talking about. If the article eliminated all unsourced, OR, and list-type material, it would be a dictionary definition for Wikitionary. Mbisanz (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Try the work that was done during the last AFD discussion, which I've repeated. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While OR is a bit of a problem in the list, I did send it to a nurse friend of mine and she said had heard of a good percent of the terms (like Vitamin M) etc. Needs referencing, but deletion is not the answer... Fosnez (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally I'd agree with you, but the last AfD was almost 9 months ago. Since these terms are suspect to copy vio and OR, they really need to go at this point, IMHO Mbisanz (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOEFFORT there is no case for deletion. The article has excellent sources and the notability of the subject is evident. If the proposer is disatisfied with the state of the article then he should exert himself and improve it. AFD is not a substitute for such work. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not cleanup, nor is it an excuse for editors not to press the edit button and improve articles themselves. Don't bring articles back to AFD just because some daft editor reinserted a whole load of unsourced content. Click on the edit button and restore the prior better version of the article. For the reasons given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical slang, keep. Uncle G (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was there since this edit [[1]], more than 90 edits and 7 months ago. And if one removes the unsourced "Adam Fox" related comments, one has a great dictionary definition for wikitionary. Mbisanz (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That it was 7 months ago is irrelevant. You read the prior AFD discussion before you renominated the article. That hyperlinked directly to the cleanup. You could have simply undone its reversion. Like all other editors, you have all of the tools at your disposal necessary for fixing the article (again). Administrator tools are not required. AFD is not cleanup, and is for the purpose of discussing whether an administrator should use the deletion tool. Ordinary editing with ordinary editing tools does not involve AFD.
    And Adam Fox is the AT Fox that is named in the further reading section of the article, as you can see if you actually read the PubMed entry. Uncle G (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, I still have questions about the validity of the AT Fox source (looks like an abstract w/ no mention of the dinner), but since that a source issue, I'm Withdrawing this AfD. Mbisanz (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2007 (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.