Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of modes of mechanical ventilation

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Table of modes of mechanical ventilation

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

Recreated article which is virtually identical to recently WP:PRODed version deleted based on no sources suggesting notability. The article lacks context, links, and clues which would help make it useful. It should be merged into modes of mechanical ventilation. —EncMstr (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was previously in modes of mechanical ventilation but the amount of sections is becoming overwhelming, I recreated the page with citations. Context can be corrected and appropriately linking it into related articles is en-progress. However, it is very blatantly notable and accurate and an important inclusion into wikipedia. It is unfortunate that it was removed before and it would be ridiculous to remove it again. The purpose for its creation was a split from modes of mechanical ventilation because I read in the Wikipedia guide that tables fitting this particular description should have their own home. I will attempt to include its existence in other pages, but I don't think that it should be the mission of so many admins to destroy (accurate) information just because there are very few editors in the genre able to fit your timeline for explaining ourselves; last I checked wikipedia is not worried about ink. Je.rrt (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or reintegrate back into the main article. Obviously encyclopedic in nature. If this is important for the main article, it should be linked from there at least with a see also. Spinning Spark 20:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spinningspark, unless deemed essential to the main article (which would be the only good reason for reintegrating such an obviously self-contained subsection in a long article) TheGrappler (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2011 (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.