Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pediatric Cardiovascular Surgery

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. The nominator's right, there's nothing to merge and a redirect to Cardiovascular surgery at this point would be pointless. I am forced to give the most weight to the 2 "keep" !voters who argue that this is a notable topic and can be expanded. Whether that happens in this article or as a section of Cardiovascular surgery is up to editor's discretion. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine can assist. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pediatric Cardiovascular Surgery

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The tag suggests merging, but there's really nothing to merge here. If someone wants to write about this topic, they can put it in Cardiovascular surgery for now, and recreate this as a separate article someday when there's enough content. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Exceptionally notable topic deserving of a full blown article. The solution is to expand and improve the article, not delete it. Cullen328 (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Look at all the medical texts on the subject found by GBooks and all of the scholarly articles found by GScholar. This is a stub article and it should be referred to WP:MED for improvement. — HowardBGolden (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This stub of an orhpan without any content or references has been untouched for almost 3 years now. As notable and deserving as the topic may be, if no one is going to write anything on it, then get rid of it. Not trying to pick a fight or take a swipe at anyone, but more often than not when the "expand and improve" argument is used and an article is kept the expected "expand and improve" doesn't happen. Mtiffany71 (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to cardiac surgery - plausible search term, but has and no and never had any content whatsoever. Wait until the cardiac surgery article has a large enough section on pediatric cardiovascular surgeries to warrant a split.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to cardiac surgery. If an article doesn't have any content besides a definition, then it probably shouldn't exist (WP:NOT#DICTIONARY). Since it's been two years without any new content being added, I doubt that any will be added soon. It should be redirected to cardiac surgery and, if someone decides to write an article about it at a later time, can be made at that time. --Slon02 (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - Slon hit the nail in the head. I think this article has had very little development because no one knows it's there. Instead, we could create a section in cardiovascular surgery, then tag it for expansion. Since cardiovascular is a pretty well trafficked page, people will notice that they need to add to the topic, and eventually will expand it to the point that this article can be recreated. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2010 (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.