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. Withdrawn by nominator, no other delete comments. Non-admin closure. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10/90_gap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:N. All it is is a twenty year old statistic from a website forum on health insurance. Non-notable and no sources. Article is written like an advertisement. Renaissancee (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) I've decided to withdraw this nomination. Renaissancee (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong or Speedy Keep - article might be poorly written and sourced but it took me 20 seconds to do this Google search and find articles in the Journal of Perinatology, The Scientist and the World Health Organisation. There also seems to be a bit of controversy about it. See the last item here where it is mentioned by Medicins sans Frontieres and the The Guardian Weekly. Please ensure you've covered the bases of WP:BEFORE before nominating. The "forum" you mention is http://www.globalforumhealth.org/ not a non-notable bunch of amateurs in a chat room but an international organisation! As penance, please fix the article ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw Please withdraw this entry. Renaissancee (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2009 (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.