Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obstetrics and gynaecology: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by 194.81.199.37 - "→obstetrics and gynaecology: " |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
* Keep. Agree with JFW. --[[User:Woggly|Woggly]] 06:24, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
* Keep. Agree with JFW. --[[User:Woggly|Woggly]] 06:24, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
||
*Delete. The text in the article seems to be the same at www.medicalsculpturing.com/pages/obstetrics-gynaecology.php and at www.powerset.com/explore/go/Obstetrics-and-gynaecology - is it in fact a straight lift? In that case maybe it isn;t free to use anyway. |
*Delete. The text in the article seems to be the same at www.medicalsculpturing.com/pages/obstetrics-gynaecology.php and at www.powerset.com/explore/go/Obstetrics-and-gynaecology - is it in fact a straight lift? In that case maybe it isn;t free to use anyway. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/194.81.199.37|194.81.199.37]] ([[User talk:194.81.199.37|talk]]) 14:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
Latest revision as of 14:15, 25 July 2008
Old discussion from Votes for deletion
[edit]Discussion concluded and article kept on June 14, 2004
This has been expanded into obstetrics and gynaecology. If we have the 2 articles, do we still need this one? Joyous 05:24, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. There's info here that doesn't fit neatly into either obstetrics or gynecology; it makes sense to me as a separate article. I'd link back to this one from the other two, though. (Incidentally, since when were we using the British spellings of anything?) :-) Wikisux 09:15, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Our policy is to use whichever comes up first, unless we have a reason not to. For example, since swing state is a uniquely American-related concept, we use U.S. spelling; similarly, British spelling goes on London. Meelar 13:28, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Deep. Yes, this is hard. You can't redirect to two different pages, can your? Keep but trim the article so the reader will move quickly to either element. JFW | T@lk 15:27, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- If it is inappropriate, it's not hard to have a link to both pages, like a disambig. - Centrx 19:11, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree with JFW. Diberri | Talk 03:42, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This is an unusual one, but it's a good subject and should have an article even if it's short and most of the material is in the other articles. Andrewa 12:11, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree with JFW. --Woggly 06:24, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. The text in the article seems to be the same at www.medicalsculpturing.com/pages/obstetrics-gynaecology.php and at www.powerset.com/explore/go/Obstetrics-and-gynaecology - is it in fact a straight lift? In that case maybe it isn;t free to use anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.199.37 (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)