Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABC of Emergency Radiology


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

ABC of Emergency Radiology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable book, not discussed in reliable sources, not a bestseller, no book awards. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)




 * Comment - I think you were missing a few things so I added them. Probably good this was relisted.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 12:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep appears to be a formative text but needs work; I'm open to changing my opinion to Weak Delete BlueSalix (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 14:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I added another source, a book review from the Critical Care Medicine journal. This along with the BMJ reliable source in the external links section, shows that the book has been discussed in multiple reliable sources, in enough depth that a reasonable short article can be written from the sources. The article is but a stub, but is well-formed and referenced. A notable topic and a well-formed article suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I see nothing that makes this book notable. Two of the references are to sites that sell the book. The last reference is a book review, but that journal has a review section and reviews a couple of books per issue - this one is not unusual in any way that I can see. The second external reference is not about the book, at least not the part that I can read. It is about a trauma technique (named somewhat differently from the book), to whit: "The primary survey comprises a rapid evaluation of the patient, resuscitation, and institution of life preserving treatment. This process is called the ABCDE of trauma." LaMona (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.