Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Injection fraction


 * 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 Ejection fraction. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Injection fraction

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article about a medical topic appears to be original research. A Google search for "Injection fraction" leads to many misspellings and one PubMed reference to a journal article from 2003 which has no abstract. I checked with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine and it appeared that the article was not part of mainstream medicine. Bad medical information can be dangerous. SchreiberBike (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect - seems to be a corruption of Ejection fraction. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I looked up the referenced article and its title is actually "Measuring ejection fraction with a MUGA scan", somehow its title is displayed wrongly on Pubmed. --WS (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's pure imagination. Injection fraction doesn't exist DocElisa ✉ 10:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and change to Redirect to "Ejection fraction". The phrase does not exist. However I have heard medical students misuse the phrase a couple of times when they meant "ejection fraction". Axl  ¤  [Talk]  14:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry but what do you mean with "redirect to Ejection fraction"? Have you read the article? There is nothing to redirected. If a student spells badly a medical term he must be corrected.DocElisa ✉ 14:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * From WP:R, one of the reasons for creating a redirect is "likely misspelling". I believe that this misspelling occurs often enough that it is worth having a redirect page. If the page is simply deleted and a reader searches for "injection fraction" they will only discover that there is no such page in Wikipedia. By adding a redirect, the reader is automatically sent to the article that they were probably looking for. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  15:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand WP:R but the problem is: if the page stays as a redirect someone can again re-edit a false article. And we will have problems forever... we already have anyway. There are lots of errors and misspellings on web. More one reason to be careful with this situations. We can't forget the fact that the other WP are translating en:WP. Regards DocElisa ✉ 19:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * - That can happen also if the page is deleted. Diego (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect per Ariconte/Axl. The creator's OR notwithstanding, this is a plausible misspelling. Hell, I've seen "injection fracture" for "ejection fraction". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect I found a few references to "injection fraction" in the literature but the two I investigated did look like injection was mistaken for ejection. I don't see anything salvageable in the article, so delete and redirect per Ariconte/Axl is best here. That this is a common misspelling is evident by the existence of the article and the redirect will help avoid article re-creation in the future --Mark viking (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect - nonsense and the one reference now shown to have been misspelt to support this new term.David Ruben Talk 00:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect - likely misspelling. Diego (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, no redirect. This is NOR from the very fertile mind of an editor who has been unable to provide any kind of sources despite being challenged repeatedly over years. JFW &#124; T@lk  09:07, 19 February 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.