Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central obesity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 01:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Central obesity

Central obesity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Having removed the text that was taken up with slang terms, this article says very little that isn't covered in the Obesity article, to which I think it should be merged. The only references in the entire article were in the slang section; now that's gone there are none at all. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 15:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep This seems like a good topic for an article (and has enough g-hits to indicate that it's a used term). I think there would be information that would be a better fit here than in Obesity (i.e. health problems specific to this type of obesity). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree the article as it stands isn't great, but it's an important (and particularly dangerous) sub-type of obesity which can be discussed in its own right - central obesity gets 14,000 Google Scholar hits, and the synonymous abdominal obesity gets another 17,000, which should be enough to be going on with. Perhaps WikiProject medicine can do something with it; a better indication of how it differs from generic obesity would be a good start. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Close this AfD, and submit a merge proposal. AfD isn't the proper forum for merge proposals. The Transhumanist    00:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. An important type of obesity that deserves its own article. --Eleassar my talk 17:12, 6 April 2008 (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.