Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowel management


 * 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. This outcome does not preclude the merger of content and/or conversion into a disambiguation page. John254 00:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Bowel management

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article discusses a bowel management program at a Cincinnati clinic. Not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, original research, not verifiable, probably conflict of interest, advertisement, ... Don't even know if it really needs discussion, doubted to propose deletion but would prefer other opinions. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC) *Keep, notable topic and verifiable material. Needs reducing to a stub and a total rewrite, but AfD isn't cleanup. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Basically a rewording of the three sources, not to the point of copyvio however. This whole page is mostly a how-to with original research and advertisement thrown in. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 21:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral per Tim Vickers. There is a useful subject here, but this isn't the article for that subject. Perhaps stubify and tag for expert attention? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 02:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Blatant rewrite. Still close enough that I wondered whether it still might be violative. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete with possibly speedy per G11 (that's the spam one, right?). Also, ew! --Jaysweet (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to Weak keep or merge, per TimVickers. Still, what a depressing way to start my morning... --Jaysweet (talk) 12:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect, after working on the article for a while I see not much that isn't a copyright violation will remain. Therefore I'd recommend a merge of a summary of this article and its references as a sub-section in Fecal_incontinence. However, as, , and  show, this is a topic that could have a good article written about it in the future. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support M & R per Tim Vickers. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep mainly as a disambiguation page. The text and references should be merged into the "Fecal incontinence" and "Constipation" articles. Axl (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2008 (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.