Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pain management


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Pain management

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has existed without citing sources or references for over two years. That is too long, so it is time to have the article deleted. Onthegogo (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Numerous textbooks and journals devoted to the subject. Clearly notable. --Chris Johnson (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  —Chris Johnson (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sourcing problems are not a reason to delete. Notability, BLP issues, etc. are. Also as above, there appear to be sources.  AfD is not for easy ways out. - BalthCat (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable and sourceable. (As an aside, the article Algology should be merged with this one.)Sjö (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Manifestly worthy subject.  Even if the current article poorly serves it, there is no deadline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A nice summary subject.  Most of the information is so general it would not need references. - MeekMark (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedily keep. Clearly an important subject. Boghog (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep just because an article is no good is not a reason to delete it. The editors who go around adding these tags should improve some article. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article looks good, and the subject is obviously important and notable. Although a very poor article can be a reason for deletion, this one's far from that. Shadowjams (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with the above. Sources exist - and, when this is Kept, they should be added as inline cites to specific facts. But that's not an issue that falls under AFD. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nomination blatantly violates our deletion process. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:34, 15 November 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.