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. MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maternal near miss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Nothing but a definition of a term used in medicine/public health. Does not seem that the article can grow beyond this - growth would happen in articles about obstetrics, childbirth or similar, not under this title. FreplySpang 03:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Rewritten article looks good, so I've stricken my nomination. FreplySpang 00:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article is a stub! Why precisely do you think the stub can't grow, seems to be violating WP:CRYSTAL. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are misunderstanding WP:CRYSTAL. It means an article should not be based on speculation. It does not mean that we cannot exercise judgement about the future when we do administrative tasks - otherwise they would be impossible. Anyway, it still seems to me that the kind of material that would go into a "Maternal near miss" article would work better in specific articles about obstetrics. If you're writing about maternal near misses due to some particular cause, that would go in the article about that particular cause. If you're writing about changes in the ways obstetrical statistics are compiled and analyzed, that would probably go in Obstetrics. But I don't think that "Maternal near miss" is the name that people would use to look for this kind of information. FreplySpang 02:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable medical term. Wikipedia is not a medical dictionary. Jo7hs2 (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions: (1) Is there some codified Wikipedia rule that says Wiki should not have a definition of a term used in medicine/public health? I think such a rule would be unwise; I can't see why it's grounds for deletion. (2) On what grounds do you regard this as being of questionable notability? You've merely made an assertion, here on this page. Two references on the page demonstrate general accepted use of the term. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to your first question: Yes. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It has nothing to do with whether the term is medical; it has to do with whether there is, as the nominator said, room to grow beyond the dictionary definition. I'll quote from one of the articles that you added as a reference: "Falling numbers of maternal deaths in developed countries have stimulated an interest in investigating cases of life threatening obstetric morbidity or near miss. The advantages of near miss over death are that near miss are more common than maternal deaths, their review is likely to yield useful information on the pathways that lead to severe morbidity and death, investigating the care received may be less threatening to providers because the woman survived, and one can learn from the women themselves since they can be interviewed about the care they received."[1] Now that is the kind of information that makes the difference between a dictionary definition and an encyclopedic article, and if you want this article kept, you should be working to find more of that. Don't tell us what the words "maternal near miss" mean; tell us why the concept "maternal near miss" matters. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well put. FreplySpang 02:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (I removed the PROD tag some time ago). Notability of term is established in article stub. The term might be relatively novel - it would fit into an overall trend of changing focus from the worst outcome itself, to situations which could have led to the outcome under slightly different circumstances. Hence the "near miss" concept - I refer to Near miss (safety) for the general use of this concept in other areas. A focus on near-miss also leads to a general change in performance indicators, as normal indicators become unreliable when observations are few (a property of the Poisson distribution). Near-miss indicators are therefore becoming more and more popular. A Gscholar search returns an impressive 40.000 hits. The assertation that this stub cannot grow is absolutely unfounded. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is simply a definition, not even the basis for an article. The term is not even particularly notable; I don't think every form of near miss that occurs in medicine deserves its own article. Keep The new version (if that's even worth saying, now that the nomination has been stricken). Anaxial (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A term notable within medicine does not equal a notable concept at Wikipedia. The relevant concept is near miss (statistics), if any. Or, (medical statistics). Anyhow, this isn't an article about that. Or an article at all - it's a dictionary entry. -- Ddawkins73 (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This concept could be included in Near miss (safety) under the health care subsection until there is sufficient detail and references to require a separate article. Ryanjo (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call for Merge to near miss (safety), then, rather than for Delete? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I would say that was looking at it as "two related topics so merge" without considering what the reality of the merged article would be. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's me you're responding to, I question how you know that I haven't "consider[ed] what the reality of the merged article would be." -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I am saying is that there's almost no content there and only specialized notability, so it's not worth arguing the toss. Discussion is 100 times longer than the "article". I won't add to it anymore :) Ddawkins73 (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The rewrite saves the article, and I recommend those who previously opined take another look. THF (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - article rewrite I am quite surprised of the consensus to delete this stub article. Deleting stubs, merely because they are stubs, mostly on hand-waving assertations of "no potential here", is not only deeply, deeply problematic, it is also contrary to basic wiki policy WP:PRESERVE. I have therefore taken the effort to completely rewrite the article. It's of course far from perfect, or even complete. I'm not a subject matter expert, and it took me about 3 hours -- demonstrating the asymmetry in effort between deleting articles and keeping them. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for rewriting, great job! FreplySpang 00:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing editor. The article is now entirely different from the one that was nominated for deletion. I therefore request a relist for AfD to extend the time window before article is deleted. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A serious article about public health and midwifery, full of peer review journal references. --Mr Accountable (talk) 07:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: good article save. Dicdef/notability concerns have been addressed by the rewrite. Baileypalblue (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Point May I make a point, now I've thrown precious time into this article. Take a look at the article's history. It was created by a once-off editor. It managed to exist for 9 minutes (nine minutes!) before it was tagged for speedy deletion (no content whatsoever) - a claim I find very dubious indeed. It eventually develops into PROD, which I delete, I add two references, the article then sees a new PROD, which is converted to this AfD. Arguments in favour of deletion are "lack of notability" in various cloaks, a postulated "no room to grow" and the very fact that the article is stub, and it therefore looks like a dictionary definition to some people. I'm aksing myself, what has happened to Wikipedia? What happened to WP:PRESERVE and the idea that Wiki is the encyclopedia that everybody can edit? An analogy to looking at ancient Greek art comes to my mind: some people only see the missing parts of the statutes, the damages etc; others try to visualize the beauty of the original artwork. Ideally, editors should spend their time improving articles, not deleting them. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong and Grumpy Keep. I found numerous references in the scholarly literature: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. I got 70 hits in google scholar, and probably will get more if you include synonyms for the term. Many of the articles are primarily about this topic. I agree with Power.corrupts's comments that the strong and quick pressing for deleting this page is seriously out of line. At the very least, someone checking for speedy deletion should have run a google scholar search and quickly seen that this is a highly notable term. And I also agree with the comments made by numerous others above that a page being a stub or having little content alone is never grounds for deletion. Cazort (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2009 (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.