Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of health topics (0-9) (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   delete. Slow speedy, or snow. StarM 04:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

List of health topics (0-9)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There is now a new List of health topics and this sub-list, and those below, are no longer needed. See Talk:List_of_health_topics for more info

&mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 22:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   -- &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 22:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 22:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. If all valid/valuable links have been merged to the new list, no need for these pages anymore.  Nice work. Cheers, Basie (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * speedy Delete as uncontroversial maintenance. DGG (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Userfy Without any context, I am not sure what this list is, but I am sure it has some use to the user at least. travb (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you even looked over the debate?! This isn't about deleting any information, just moving material around.  What user would want this anyway? Themfromspace (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the disparity in the jumble of links I doubt that it is of any use. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 *  Redirect Delete this shouldn't have been brought to AfD. It's noncontroversial and doesn't involve the deletion of any material. Themfromspace (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A redirect would only be appropriate if it was a likely search string entered by a WP user. None of that article names up for AFD are likely to be used in search queries. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * True, true. Changed to delete, same rationale as for redirecting.  Themfromspace (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Also, the list is apparently a strait dump from a website, the list has never been completed for all the letters, the list is predominately links that are not relevant or add to a cluttered list. Basically it is irretrievable as a decent encyclopaedic page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete next time, perhaps this sort of thing should be prod-ded. SMSpivey (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with above. Prod or speedy these uncontroversial deletes. -Atmoz (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as copyright violation: original source (http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/) is fully protected by copyright, so copying there index isn't a smart move. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. twirligigLeave one! &#8900; Check me out! 19:14, 20 January 2009 (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.