Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obstetrics and gynaecology

Old discussion from Votes for deletion
Discussion concluded and article kept on June 14, 2004

obstetrics and gynaecology
This has been expanded into obstetrics and gynaecology. If we have the 2 articles, do we still need this one? Joyous 05:24, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's info here that doesn't fit neatly into either obstetrics or gynecology; it makes sense to me as a separate article. I'd link back to this one from the other two, though. (Incidentally, since when were we using the British spellings of anything?) :-) Wikisux 09:15, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Our policy is to use whichever comes up first, unless we have a reason not to. For example, since swing state is a uniquely American-related concept, we use U.S. spelling; similarly, British spelling goes on London. Meelar 13:28, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Deep. Yes, this is hard. You can't redirect to two different pages, can your? Keep but trim the article so the reader will move quickly to either element. JFW | T@lk  15:27, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * If it is inappropriate, it's not hard to have a link to both pages, like a disambig. - Centrx 19:11, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with JFW. Diberri | Talk 03:42, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an unusual one, but it's a good subject and should have an article even if it's short and most of the material is in the other articles. Andrewa 12:11, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with JFW. --Woggly 06:24, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. The text in the article seems to be the same at www.medicalsculpturing.com/pages/obstetrics-gynaecology.php and at www.powerset.com/explore/go/Obstetrics-and-gynaecology - is it in fact a straight lift? In that case maybe it isn;t free to use anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.199.37 (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)