Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Septic abortion


 * 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. Merging options may be further discussed on the article's talk page. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 00:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Septic abortion

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This page violates notability (events) under routine coverage. Wikipedia has no notability guidelines that specifically address medical complications - anyone want to start one? This is just a complication of abortion. There is no article about septic appendectomy. Perhaps a section on under abortion is better, that way the info can be kept. I'm willing to help. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Septic abortion appears relatively often in other articles - see Special:WhatLinksHere/Septic_abortion. Therefore, I thought it would be easiest to have an own article for it, rather than having them all redirecting to a section in e.g. abortion, since all such redirects stop working once the section title is changed. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, I think deletion is very exaggerated. I would accept a merge to Abortion, however. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge I agree. Deletion is too cruel for all this work done and all those references cited. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep location is still what I'd prefer, but let's see what the third voter says. If merging, however, miscarriage would probably be the best target. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge The refs are not WP:MEDRS compliant. This is a complication of a mischarriage and should be combined into that page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate all comments above. My opinion is that this article should be retained as a separate article, with the title to remain as is. Septic abortion is not merely a complication of a medical or surgical procedure; rather it can and frequently does occur "spontaneously", much like certain other life-threatening infectious processes (e.g., appendicitis, tonsillitis, or ascending cholangitis). The diagnosis of septic abortion overlaps with other related diagnoses, like infectious endometritis and puerperal fever. But it is sufficiently different, IMHO, to warrant its own article. That having been said, this article is in need of LOTS of work. In particular, it needs to be brought into compliance with WP:MEDRS guidelines for medicine-related articles. I would also like to seee some discussion of the incidence, diagnosis and differential diagnosis of septic abortion, as well as its cost to society. And for what it is worth, I am a practicing physician. :-) DiverDave (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, I must admit don't understand this deletion discussion. Google might not be the ultimate referee but gives a massive 121,000 hits for the exact term. Scholar still has 4000-something works listed. So it seems to be a well-established, extensively researched process (not an event, of course). That there is no special guideline for it should not be a reason for deletion. --Pgallert (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The google hit data has been used to have an article on Amanda Knox, who has over a million hits. Amanda Knox was deleted and made into a redirect.  I am in favor of making google hits some consideration but this is not to be. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge. Content is important. And I agree that the main source sucks. JFW | T@lk  19:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability as a medical condition other than a complication from an abortion or as a type of miscarriage is neither asserted nor proven in this article.  This article is cited to a dictionary definition and one online "encyclopedia" article. Repeating that single citation roughly 30 times does not make this any better sourced than if it had one per paragraph or even one non-inline cite at the bottom of the page.  As it stands, it's a partial rewording and slight condensing of a single copyrighted source.  The WP:MEDRS guidelines for medical articles are in place for a reason. - Dravecky (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic has real merit, both medically and historically. The article needs vast improvement, but the past neglect does not impact the notability of the topic.Novangelis (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - although the title appears to be POV, it is neither an abortion nor exactly a regular miscarriage. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2010 (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.