Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caesarean delivery on maternal request

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caesarean delivery on maternal request

Caesarean delivery on maternal request (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This appears to be a POV fork of cesarean section, anging the drum on behalf of the natural birth people (who are probably right about a lot of it, by the way, but that's immaterial). It contains some speculation, and if pruned will be not significantly bigger than the section already in cesarean section (under Elective). Some of the text here is generic to cesarean sections anyway (infant mortality rates, for example). Might need merging or smerging back, but probably redundant. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Looks pretty well-referenced to me. If there's a problem with tone, then edit. I don't see how the article merits deletion. Merging, maybe... but not deletion. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as POV fork. If not merged, it should definitely be moved to Elective caesarean section. The term "caesarean delivery on maternal request" does not appear at all in Google Books, and is outnumbered in Google Scholar by "elective caesarean section" by approximately 6,000 to 3. The use of such an extreme minority term for the title of the article is suggestive as to its POV-fork nature. PubliusFL 17:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep.Cesarean delivery on maternal request is specific medical term for a more and more recognized and requested indication for a Cesarean section. As stated, a possibly sizable percentage of women undergo CDMR. The article provides the reference support, including the fact that the NIH brought together a consensus conference to wrestle with the matter. It is, of course, an elective CS, and people usually refer to it as such, but: not all elective sections are done on maternal request. The discussion in the Cesarean section article is witten with the distinct view that doctors like to do unnecessary CS for convenience and money. That may be the case in some situations, but that section needs more references and less POV, - further, this has really little to do with CDMR. So, Cesarean delivery on maternal request is a distinct medical term that actually avoids POV, makes it clear that this "elective CS" is not done because the physician or somebody else has an interest in it, and can be kept clear of the more murky elective CS discussion. Alternatively, it could be considered to move the "Elective CS" section out of the CS article, making it its own lemma, and within have two sections: CDMR and "elective CS for other reasons".Ekem 20:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - the article says "Caesarean delivery on maternal request (CDMR)" is "also called an elective caesarean section." If it's really a "distinct medical term," the article should say so and point to reliable sources that demonstrate what the difference is. Based on a quick Google search using both terms, I can't find anyone who distinguishes between them. PubliusFL 23:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  Entry sentence modified accordingly.Ekem 11:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and possibly Rename. I see Ekem's point - many people point the fingers only at doctors, not at parents. I would however suggest this be changed to "parental request", since some anecdotal testimony implies that CDMRs may occur because the father pressures the mother to go through major, possibly life-threatening surgery so his pleasure is not theoretically infinitesimally reduced. --Charlene 22:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don;t think its really equiv. to "Elective Caesarian section, which I think includes ones possibly preferable for medical reasons but not absolutely required. But I would rename it nonetheless, as the closest term, and then edit the article. DGG 01:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Ekem Maustrauser 10:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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.