Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of birth control methods: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Davidruben (talk | contribs) →Comparison of birth control methods: strong keep - summarising and distilling info is what an encyclopaedia is about |
|||
Line 8:
*'''Delete:''' It does read very much like a medical [[Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO#NOTHOWTO|instruction manual / advice column]]. Cheers, [[User:Ut Libet|Ut Libet ヽ(;・_・)/ ]] ([[User talk:Ut Libet|talk]]) 23:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep:''' I disagree that this is in a how-to style. There's no list of instructions, no use of the second-person, and the statements aren't worded as advice. Instead there's a discussion of the various criteria commonly used to evaluate birth control methods; that's an encyclopedic topic. Moreover, whatever stylistic changes need to be made to the criteria sections, the list itself contains all the information I'd expect in a list of birth-control methods. With some work, I could easily see this becoming a featured list. --[[User:Chrajohn|Chris Johnson]] ([[User talk:Chrajohn|talk]]) 00:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep''' nothing instructing anyone. The whole point about contraception methods (well nearly so, except for a few medical indications) is that it is about choice for the woman (occasionally the man too), and whilst info on any one method is in the relevant articles, a comparison of effectiveness (perfect-use and typical-use) with consideration of other pros & cons factors is the very essence of an encyclopaedia distilling down information. Summary-articles is done all the time (take [[Diabetes]] as a top level article for [[type 1 diabetes]], [[type 2 diabetes]], [[diabetes management]] etc), but equally this comparative data is far too long for inclusion in [[contraception]] and so is valid as a sub-topic article. Finally from the practical editorial management: the topics of contraception are heavily edited with tendency for editors to disagree over effectiveness rates, perfect vs. typical rates, and the acceptable sources to use. This article, with its past discussions/edits over these issues, is now relatively stable and so is the ''de facto'' consensus amongst editors. As such it both gives a localised focus for any disagreements over such matters, and may also help direct a new editor unwittingly refighting old ground in any single contraceptive article. [[User:Davidruben|David Ruben]] <sup> [[User talk:Davidruben|Talk]] </sup> 03:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
| |||