Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chemical pregnancy


 * 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   redirect to Pregnancy.  Sandstein  22:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Chemical_pregnancy
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is redundant. Chemical pregnancy is covered in pregnancy and pregnancy test. Little can be elaborated to this article, it would never make more than a stub. As such it should be deleted or redirected somewhere else
 * Delete article is no more than a dicdef, and the term does not seem well established - only 56 Ghits. JohnCD (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Unsure at this point. This is not quite a typical dictionary definition but more of a technical medical/scientific term. I don't know if it deserves a separate WP entry distinct from pregnancy. GoogleScholar returns 334 hits which appears to indicate sufficiently widespread usage of the term in scientific literature. GoogleBooks returns 152 hits. If it can be expanded to include more substantive information than currently given in the WP entry, then it probably could be kept. Otherwise one could add a few sentences to the pregnancy article. Nsk92 (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * redirect this has 26 google news hits which indicate WP:RS- newspapers and so on so I don't know how people are getting the other figures, but I recommend using google news (at least instead of ordinary google, and alongside scholar and books if you feel like using them) anyway, as like "scholar" and "books" it indicates reliable sources.  This is far more than would be expected for a non-notable article subject.  However, not much can be said about it which isn't covered in other articles, so I suggest a redirect to either "miscarriage" or "pregnancy test" or whatever people prefer.  Women who have had one, or their partners, will search for this term, and it is a well known term among women who are trying to conceive and their partners. (I imagine this is quite a lot of the population at some point in their lives.)  Sources mentioning it include the Guardian, the Telegraph, Washington Post, New York Times, ABC and Wall Street Journal, so you can't say the phenomenon hasn't at least been noted in passing at the vey least, in many of the most reliable sources- the broadsheets and so on. Merkin's  mum 18:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Pregnancy or maybe Complications of pregnancy and define the term there; also add it to Wiktionary. Right now this is a definition, not an encyclopedic article. Merenta (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree Snellios (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Pregnancy or something and mention there. It may be split out later if enough material has been added. Try pubmed. --Eleassar my talk 17:57, 13 May 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.