Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life support


 * 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. - Philippe 03:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Life support

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

I propose deleting the whole article. Everything on this page is covered by basic life support, and all it has is a disproportionately large paragraph on the catholic church's objection to the practice. It could be removed, or added as a paragraph somewhere else. rakkar (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete & Redirect. Paragraph in question could be moved to other page, but needs some cleanup first; it's fairly poorly written. &mdash; Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. This article and basic life support have little in common; the nominator appears to misunderstand one or the other of these articles (probably this one, as it's not very well written). Mechanical ventilation is the only intersection that I can see. BLS is something that is done by prehospital personnel (EMTs, first responders) whereas the subject of this article is something that happens in the hospital. This article is poorly worded and needs some reconstruction - it may well need to be moved or merged with something; however, a merge into basic life support is a mistake, as there is little overlap. I believe that it does cover a real and notable topic; were it better worded my vote would be keep. The religious objections portion of this article is questionable but may pass muster; I'm undecided on that paragraph. Merenta (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Move life support (disambiguation) to this location, and include both Basic life support and Advanced cardiac life support in the list. --Dhartung | Talk 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't a disambiguation page be called a disambiguation page? Mandsford (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Merenta is right. Life support is a completely different subject from basic life support. I'm surprised that this is such a weak article given the potential things there are to say about it. Maybe there is another one on the same subject hiding out there and it can become a redirect. In any case, being a bad article is not a reason for deletion. It should be flagged for improvement and left to grow. That's what Wikipedia is all about. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As Merenta and DJ Clayworth have stated this article refers to a different subject than the emergency medicine basic life support article. It could be expanded quite easily (I'll willingly have a go at it!) or there may be something out there which it could be redirected to but certainly not basic life support or the life support (disambiguation) list which consists of discussed article plus fiction articles! Yes it appears to have a disproportionately large ethics section but IMO it should be left to grow.   Nk.sheridan     Talk  22:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Intensive care medicine is the only redirect I have found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nk.sheridan (talk • contribs) 22:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Needs cleanup, but definitely a notable topic. Terry Schiavo taught us that. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to basic life support as it contains no useful and unduplicated information, without prejudice to expansion if proper information becomes available. Stifle (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs a lot of work, but definitely a notable topic.  It's not at all the same as basic life support, so the article shouldn't be redirected there. Klausness (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I support Dhartung's solution. I'm surprised at how inadequate this article is, but I don't know enough to improve it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's already a Life support (disambiguation) page, and the general topic of life support is different from both Basic Life Support and Advanced Cardiac Life Support, so I think this page should stay as the stub it currently is until someone expands it. It's a notable topic not covered by any other article, so it's worth keeping.  Klausness (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Klausness.  The merger proposal seems entirely wrong---Basic life support and Advanced Cardiac Life Support are obviously about EMT/ER-level interventions, while Life support is about the (instantly recognizable) phenomenon of being hooked up to life-sustaining machines in an ICU.  The article is pretty bad, but you have to start somewhere, and the topic is distinct and notable.Bm gub (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: article seems POV.  It contains an assertion that in some cases it may be unethical; then, it points out that the Catholic Church, which is commonly thought of as favoring it, actually has a more nuanced position, and concludes by saying that it may actually be illegal in some states, thus leaving the impression that nobody  believes it ethical to unconditionally prolong life.  Also, the article lacks sources.  69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:16, 15 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.