Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottawa rules

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 no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 03:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa rules[edit]

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

Covered in more depth in Ottawa ankle rules and Ottawa knee rules Mschamberlain (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure why this is a deletion discussion rather than one about redirect vs. merge. Ottawa knee rules is very short and has only one source. Would the best solution here be to merge Ottawa ankle rules and Ottawa knee rules into one article, perhaps at this more comprehensive title Ottawa rules? --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence that "the Ottawa rules" exists as a separate concept. The ankle and knee rules seem to be in place and per this history it seems that "the Ottawa rules" came from its usage for ankles alone. The knee article has no history so that doesn't help. I don't see why these should be merged as they could both include more separate history, separate details and (eventually) if one or the other is deprecated or something, it would be a historical footnote and not much more. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, keep and make into a disambiguation page since it could refer to either. If there's more history, it could become its own article later. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant usage, too disparate from Ottawa ankle rules and Ottawa knee rules. --Bejnar (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no significant usage, then that would be consistent with your supporting this be revised to be a dab page; it doesn't require deleting.
And what about Ottawa foot rules, also covered in this article? You would delete that entirely, or move it to a new article? In a dab page, the foot rules can be treated as an apparently valid topic, just with a red-link. And the material (now without sourcing) could just be copied to the talk page, for possible later help to an editor creating the topic. --do ncr am 12:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but probably it should be converted to a disambiguation page, basically per Ricky81682. It seems it could apply to 3 topics, Ottawa foot rules in addition to ankle and knee roles. If there is no Ottawa foot rules article, that can be listed as a red link. --do ncr am 12:01, 2 June 2014 (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.