Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presistent vegetative
- 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 Delete, SNOW close, as Pete says not something to waste much time on. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Presistent vegetative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Essay-like article completely based upon one person's own interpretation, but one that might be edited into a quality article. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 23:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, somebody created a diary entry, and it's Persistent. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, should have been marked for speedy deletion. Note that there is already a high-quality article at persistent vegetative state. Looie496 (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per Looie496, persistent vegetative state exists and, per Phlegm Rooster, this falls under some form of WP:NOT, ought to be speediable, perhaps a quick WP:SNOW will do. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article indeed falls under WP:NOT which is, unfortunately, explicitly not a reason for a speedy. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 09:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I know. I meant ought to be speediable as in "wouldn't it be nice not to waste time on an AfD", not is. Pete.Hurd (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Looie496. If there is already an article out there, there is no need for this. (Removing my previous vote, to long to stripe) Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 09:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Good article already exists - perhaps turn this into a redirect to the good article Braindigitalis (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect: it's a simple typo, so quite a plausible redirect. Nyttend (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.