Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical slang (2nd nomination)

Medical slang

Prior AfD consensus was split evenly. Since then no development has been made on keeping this as an encyclopedic article and not just a random collection of information WP:NOT. Given the lack of sources and the high possibility of there being copy vio issues and the likely amount of original research that went into determining was is "slang" acronyms and terms, it should be deleted. Mbisanz (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The prior afd consensus wasn't split evenly. The Keeps and their reasoning outweighed the Deletes. Moreover, two of the Deletes stated their reasons as "per above," and the "above" switched their votes from Delete to Keep!--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO, WP:NOT#DICT, etc. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, slang guide, etc. I agree with the nom that this is also somewhat WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs a bit of work, but an interesting and useful article. 203.220.13.61 (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your vote, but I wonder what "work" it is your talking about. If the article eliminated all unsourced, OR, and list-type material, it would be a dictionary definition for Wikitionary. Mbisanz (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While OR is a bit of a problem in the list, I did send it to a nurse friend of mine and she said had heard of a good percent of the terms (like Vitamin M) etc. Needs referencing, but deletion is not the answer... Fosnez (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd agree with you, but the last AfD was almost 9 months ago. Since these terms are suspect to copy vio and OR, they really need to go at this point, IMHO Mbisanz (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]