Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortal wound


 * 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. Consensus is clear. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Mortal Wound
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article doesn't have any references, appears never to have had any and contains original research. It is the subject of debate as to whether or not it should be deleted. If it were a subject I were an expert in I would say no objection but perhaps the medical category needs this article to be there. If it does then the article requires referencing asap. If not then I'm pretty sure that this is an uncontraversial proposal for deletion. Edaham (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment I wonder if it might be legal jargon rather than medical. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply to Comment good point. This would certainly lend a point to its continued existence here. It also opens up a variety of places to look for sources. It might also be a term used in military documentation in some places or points throughout history. This could also be an area where digging for sources might be appropriate. Many thanks. Edaham (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * that being said, we have to do more than simply find sources defining it. We aren't a dictionary, and while there are some parts of the definition of this term which might be useful for clarifying it, I can't (so far) find anything worth more than a couple of sentences in another article on a related subject. I.e.


 * https://thelegaldictionary.org/dictionary/mortal-wound/
 * http://research.omicsgroup.org/index.php/Mortal_wound (incidentally the source from which large parts of the article are plagerized - but not cited)
 * Edaham (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * http://research.omicsgroup.org/index.php/Mortal_wound appears to be copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around; right down to the tag "This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2009)" TJRC (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm going with Delete. It's a phrase, and not one that has any sort of "official" status that needs to be defined. Do medical diagnostics or procedures change based on whether something is a "mortal wound" or just a "wound," for example?
 * It's not a legal term. I know of no law that depends on this. It's not listed in my copy of Black's Law Dictionary. ("Mortal" is, and uses the phrase in passing: "Destructive to life; causing or occasioning death; exposing to or deserving death, especially spiritual death; deadly; fatal, as, a mortal wound [emphasis added], or mortal sin; of or pertaining to time of death.")
 * I just don't see any basis of notability to retain an article on this phrase; and the WP:OR is just icing on that cake. TJRC (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: Mortal Wound and Mortally wounded redirect to this article, and would need to be deleted and links cleaned up if this article is deleted. TJRC (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete not seeing evidence it is an encyclopedic topic. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * delete I've been swayed fully to what I suspected in the first place that this definition of a phrase doesn't warrant its own article. However since it's still up, I will delete some of the unsourced material and add the source so it at least looks like it falls within stub guidelines while it's still up. Edaham (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with deleting this article. The purpose of it is served by a dictionary definition of the word 'mortal', anyone interested in 'mortal wound' should find sufficient information there. Michael Dacre (talk - contribs - email) 21:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Summary
 * It looks like we have a consensus, but the article is still present. How long does this process take? Is it my responsibility as the person who put this article forward to take the results somewhere? Edaham (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus. Articles for deletion. Still a few hours short. Don't worry, there is no deadline. TJRC (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for replying. I have not engaged in this process before. Edaham (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2017 (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.