Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hs and Ts


 * 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. Michig (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hs and Ts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an originally written elaboration of the 4H/4T mnemonic used in advanced life support and advanced cardiac life support protocols. I don't think it is encyclopedic, in the sense that it strays into WP:NOTHOWTO and, as I said, is originally written. JFW &#124; T@lk  15:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep lots of high quality sources to back it up. A section on history would be useful. I am happy to allow this maybe borderline expansion as we are not limited by lack of paper. This sort of formatting does not belong within the main article on cardiac arrest Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure but I'll make a broken record of myself and say we should ideally have a featured List of medical mnemonics page. (That was red at time of writing.) Could that influence the decision, if it existed? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 21:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a notable topic as demonstrated by the references. The subject is heavily promoted by resuscitation councils in the English-speaking world. The article lacks in-line citations, which would be helpful. Thus the article would benefit from addition of these and perhaps some clean-up. The nominator (JFW) uses the phrase "originally written" and links it to the policy WP:NOR. These two concepts, "originally written" and "original research", are entirely different and must not be conflated. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  09:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems legit per, , , , . --Cerebellum (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2013 (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.