- 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The result was Withdrawn. John Vandenberg 19:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse 3 sign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Originally {{prod}}ed as non-notable non-standard medical term. Still appears non-notable, and I've run across other uses of the term in radiological diagnosis. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge info into Aortic coarctation and turn this page into a redirect to Aortic coarctation. It may be non-standard from a literature standpoint, but this term is used (at least I have run into it). I can easily imagine some medical student searching google for "Reverse 3 sign," after hearing it on rounds. It would be a good thing if they could find it on Wikipedia! —Gaff ταλκ 21:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Go ahead. I'll withdraw the nomination if a reputable editor merges it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect per Gaff. Could be useful to have a redirect, but an entire article is unnecessary.Firestorm 21:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'm fine with that. I was considering adding it to a larger article talking about 'shorthand jargon of radiology' but if you'd like to merge it that's fine. I will be more cautious in the future. Chantoke 23:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn as merged (even though the AfD notice shouldn't have been deleted). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2007 (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.