Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexually Transmitted Infections In Pakistan

: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 Merge into Health care in Pakistan. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

=[[Sexually transmitted infections in Pakistan]]=

:{{la|Sexually transmitted infections in Pakistan}} ([{{fullurl:Sexually transmitted infections in Pakistan|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexually transmitted infections in Pakistan}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

While this doesn't really meet any of the CSD criteria, it is little more than a personal essay and attempt to reach out to other organisations. Not Wikipedia material. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Personal essay that is unencyclopedic. Good luck to the author with the project, though. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep, has significant coverage in reliable sources. Just needs expansion and sourcing. Juzhong (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge with Health care in Pakistan. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[http://www.cooksrecipes.com/cooking-dictionary/F-4.html Fold] into Health care in Pakistan per the suggestion of SWik78 above. First of all, all of the links in the article, with the exception of [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/tchs/2002/00000004/00000002/art00005 this one], are complete unhelpful; they only go to home pages of various organizations which may or may not have information relevant to this article. Yet the one source that is good (dealing with the truckers), is very interesting. I see this as an example of what I am finding to be a classic disagreement amongst AfD afficianados: Do we delete the article that is currently crap (which this one is, both in terms of content and mechanics), or keep it because, with enough work, it has the potential to be a good article? I see the potential, but I know that I am not going to devote the days or weeks it would take to salvage this, so I say just take the interesting tidbit here about the truckers and add it to the more general article. Un school 06:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Merge per Unschool. --Crusio (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2009 (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.