Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowel management (2nd nomination)


 * 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. If anyone wants to continue the merge discussion, the talk page can be used for that Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Bowel management
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The biggest problem with this article is that it does not define its subject, "bowel management". "Bowel management" might mean "the practices which encourage regular bowel movements". However, this article does not take that perspective. Instead, it has some information about unusual treatments for unusual medical conditions, as for people who use daily enemas for all their bowel movements. I think this is mostly about treating fecal incontinence and could redirect to there.

The first two citations from emedicine do not have information on this general subject. The other citations are for very specific medical conditions.

Some information here might be salvaged to merge to other articles, but I think this article is too incoherent to persist. If anyone wishes to keep this topic, I would like to see the subject defined and information not matching that subject deleted. Thoughts from others?  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  16:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge or redirect: I feel that some of the information is worthy enough to merge to other appropriate articles. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep this is a major topic in the field of disability, this article can easily be expanded by looking outside of the narrow confines of exclusively medical sources. For many disabled people bowel management is simply an activity of daily living, not a medical procedure.
 * Sources found through a very cursory search:
 * https://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/service/c/colorectal/treatments/bowel-management
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4174229/
 * http://www.sci-info-pages.com/bowel.html
 * https://aboutincontinence.org/treatment/bowel-management.html
 * http://www.seattlechildrens.org/clinics-programs/surgery/services/bowel-management/
 * http://www.mottchildren.org/conditions-treatments/colorectal-disorders/treatments/bowel-management
 * https://www.caresearch.com.au/caresearch/tabid/1738/Default.aspx
 * https://www.rnoh.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/SIA-MASCIP_bowel_guidelines1.pdf
 * http://www.nationwidechildrens.org/bowel-management-program
 * http://www.buckshealthcare.nhs.uk/Downloads/Patient-leaflets-NSIC/Bowel%2520management%2520following%2520spinal%2520cord%2520injury.pdf
 * https://www.christopherreeve.org/living-with-paralysis/health/secondary-conditions/bowel-management
 * https://www.schn.health.nsw.gov.au/parents-and-carers/fact-sheets/spina-bifida-introduction-to-bowel-management-and-spina-bifida
 * https://www.mdanderson.org/patients-family/diagnosis-treatment/emotional-physical-effects/bowel-management.html
 * https://spinal.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Bowel-Management.pdf
 * https://www.nursingtimes.net/clinical-archive/continence/effective-bowel-management-for-patients-after-spinal-cord-injury/204316.article
 * I could go on, but I think I've made my point, this deletion nomination is clearly lacking in WP:BEFORE. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination I still think the article is unclear and I feel like I made a fair go at research, but thanks for sharing these links. While I find many of these and other sources to be poor, I at least came to understand what was being discussed here. I used these sources to develop the lead of the article to try to give it a unique focus. Thanks for your patience in hearing me out and responding. And yes, it is true - PubMed is a hard place to find articles on this topic but much more is in general Google search. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  21:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting because despite the nominator withdrawing, an !vote exists for merging or redirection.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per Dodger67. The subject seems notable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2017 (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.