Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of birth control methods

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 per near-unanimity of respondents.

Comparison of birth control methods

Comparison of birth control methods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

A how to page on how not to get knocked up, any strengths and weaknesses of a particular method belongs on the page of the method itself. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It does read very much like a medical
  instruction manual / advice column. Cheers, Ut Libet ヽ(;・_・)/ (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: I disagree that this is in a how-to style. There's no list of instructions, no use of the second-person, and the statements aren't worded as advice. Instead there's a discussion of the various criteria commonly used to evaluate birth control methods; that's an encyclopedic topic. Moreover, whatever stylistic changes need to be made to the criteria sections, the list itself contains all the information I'd expect in a list of birth-control methods. With some work, I could easily see this becoming a featured list. --Chris Johnson (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep nothing instructing anyone. The whole point about contraception methods (well nearly so, except for a few medical indications) is that it is about choice for the woman (occasionally the man too), and whilst info on any one method is in the relevant articles, a comparison of effectiveness (perfect-use and typical-use) with consideration of other pros & cons factors is the very essence of an encyclopaedia distilling down information. Summary-articles is done all the time (take
  contraception and so is valid as a sub-topic article. Finally from the practical editorial management: the topics of contraception are heavily edited with tendency for editors to disagree over effectiveness rates, perfect vs. typical rates, and the acceptable sources to use. This article, with its past discussions/edits over these issues, is now relatively stable and so is the de facto consensus amongst editors. As such it both gives a localised focus for any disagreements over such matters, and may also help direct a new editor unwittingly refighting old ground in any single contraceptive article. David Ruben ^Talk 03:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Its a good comparison list, in a properly referenced article. Dream Focus 11:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Contraception is an encyclopedic topic, and, oddly enough, scientific studies have been made on what the nominator describes as "how not to get knocked up". This is rather well-sourced. Perhaps the most effective method of birth control is "Not right now, I'm on working on Wikipedia!" Mandsford (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not keen on "comparison of" articles, but in this case as an adjunct to the main articles, this one is almost necessary. Mangoe (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Since there are many methods of contraception/birth control, with a common goal but different characteristics, it is important to have an overview that compares the methods. The comparison is too large to include in Birth control. To include this information in the articles on specific methods (to show how method x compares to others) would mean a lot of duplication (reader looking at several articles would have the same material to skim multiple times, harder to maintain, etc.). Factoring the comparison information into one article makes sense.

I don't see much of anything that is how to in the article either in terms of content (e.g. it does not cover how to select a method), or style. Perhaps you could raise specific concerns in the articles talk page? Zodon (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a good summary article. This is the appropriate way to present the material--the individual articles will expand on the details. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 29 October 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.