Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ischiopagi

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. Without prejudice to a merge discussion j⚛e decker ^talk 02:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ischiopagi[edit]

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

Having read the criteria for deletion of Wikipedia, I do not find this article to be needed, especially when we can summarize the entire article in a few sentences on the conjoined twins page. We do not need individual pages on each type of conjoined twinning, when we have the information on a broader page. The Awkward Axolotl (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't agree that the information in this article could be summarized in a few sentences. Even if it could, the appropriate outcome would not be delete but merge. GoldenRing (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the Classification system can be merged into the Conjoined twins article; however, the remainder of the article is all already in the latter and doesn't need to have its own. We already have Prognosis, Embryology, Treatment, etc. in Conjoined twins; it isn't only applicable to Ischiopagi and the article speaks of conjoined twins in general. The Awkward Axolotl (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I also neglected to add that we could add several of the details from the aforementioned sections into Conjoined twins, but I stand by my original response.The Awkward Axolotl (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, no convincing argument for deletion. Obviously it is a sub-topic from Conjoined twins, but as far as we have enough things to say about it a separate article is perfectly valid. Cavarrone 07:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My argument for deleting it was that the article is redundant when the necessary information can be summarized in Conjoined twins - having said that and read what GoldenRing had to say, I now believe that we could merge the necessary information from Ischiopagi into the Ischiopagus section of Types of Conjoined Twins in the CT article. The majority of this information does not apply solely to Ischiopagi but to all conjoined twins - if we remove that, then the article becomes incredibly small and could then be merged into Conjoined twins. The Awkward Axolotl (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Should have been a merger proposal instead. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:41, 4 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.