Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sessional GP


 * 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. henrik • talk  18:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Sessional GP

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Tagged for lack of notability since December 2008, and seems to fail notability criteria. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. A significant category of British physician, with plenty of ghits from WP:RS and specialist sources available. Article is stubby, yes, although it has been improved since nomination. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge with general practitioner. JFW &#124; T@lk  12:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found several sources which seem to establish notability:  and .  If we need to beef up this article, we can merge info from National Association of Sessional GPs, or add material on locum GPs as found in, , , and . In any case, this seems like a fairly broad topic which we should be covering. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per rescue work done since nomination. Adequate sources have been provided to demonstrate the notability of the topic. Failing keep, merge to GP. BusterD (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cerebellum's rationale.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:02, 14 March 2012 (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.