Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-mortem interval

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post-mortem interval

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

Entirely unsourced, failing WP:V, so tagged since 2009. No way to tell as a reader if any of this, particularly the stages of death, is true. Delete if untrue or still unsourced after the AfD, else merge to Death. Sandstein 09:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep We do not delete articles just because they lack sources because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a search engine. Even if the article had references, this would be no guarantee that they or the text of the article was true. The main way that Wikipedia is kept reasonably accurate is that we have many eyes inspecting the content and that the readers are able to tag or correct anything which seems dubious. There doesn't seem to be any such dubious content in this article and so the concern of the nomination is low priority busy work. But AFD is not cleanup. If the nominator wants sources adding or the facts checked, he should please do so himself, per {{sofixit}}. Warden (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, lack of sources is indeed a reason for deletion per WP:V. That policy states: "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I am challenging this unsourced material because I have no way to determine whether it is true. This means that it must be deleted if nobody does source it. Even if it is eventually sourced, it does not seem to fulfil the requirements for a standalone article and should therefore be merged. Sandstein 15:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ - After a brief review, strikes me that with a little work, this article could pass WP:V. At the same time though, Sand is right in saying there's currently no sourcing. Not sure what to do here. Do we delete articles because they are not verified or do we delete them because they can't be verified. Probably ideal solution would be for someone to just rework the article. NickCT (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Chiswick Chap added some references. I'm changing from neutral to keep. NickCT (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Colonel is correct here: we delete when sources cannot be found, not when they simply happen not to be in the article already. However, to save arguing, I've simply added some refs, and done a little body-dressing on the article. There is no shortage of suitable sources; every forensic pathologist knows the traditional methods, it appears. It does look as though the one that the pre-AfD text was based on was pretty basic, however. I've also named and reffed two more recent techniques; I rather suspect there are a whole lot more that could be added, but others can add those later. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, following Chiswick Chap's improvements to the article, especially the inclusion of academic material in which there is substantial coverage of the subject. Mephistophelian (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2012 (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.