Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disease in colonial America

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disease in colonial America

This article, like my AFD above for another article by the same author, reads like a personal essay and contains WP:POV and WP:OR. It is too far from meeting Wikipedia's quality standards to justify a cleanup tag. -Freqsh0 (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FWIW, I didn't feel it was not notable, there is nothing wrong with the topic. My criticisms are of the actual article. But if consensus is that it can be saved, all is well. -Freqsh0 (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ with no prejudice against userfying. It is a very nice example of WP:OR. RayAYang (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep It is a notable topic. Brain fart on my part; OR is usually taken care of in cleanup. RayAYang (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although I would recommend moving the title to Medicine in colonial America. Though the writing and organization can certainly be improved, it's a valid topic, and there are articles such as Medicine in ancient Rome or History of medicine in Canada that examine the treatment of illness in the days before antibiotics and x-rays. Though it may need to make better use of its sources, it uses sources. And though it could be written more eloquently, Wikipedia is a place where people perfect their skills, not a place where people have perfect skills. Thus, I would describe this as a nice attempt to comply with Wikipedia's expectations. Mandsford (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obsessively-referenced article with references to 7 independent publications. Topic is clearly notable, any problems with content can be fixed without deletion. JulesH (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delete. Keep On the surface, this entire article seems to be a sublime example of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. It is quite obviously a POV fork, but that's not ALWAYS a 100% bad thing. I'm going to try to dig up some of these publications that are mentioned in the article over the next few days and see if I can prove or disprove the references. Trusilver 23:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep. I have gotten a hold on a few of the sources used in the creation of this article, and while there are many overtones of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR, there is still enough notable here to repair the article rather than to delete it entirely. Trusilver 20:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a notable topic. Warrington (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable well-referenced article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; while there is a problem with tone, the subject is obviously notable, and the article seems well-referenced. Everyking (talk) 23:06, 9 December 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.