- 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 speedy keep. Nominated by sock of banned user, no other editors supported deletion. BethNaught (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hypertension (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Falure of update, some one revert 2015 update inforamtion and prevent updates and also using old guidelines bp values,plese see talk page of this article for letest sources,pleae see classification of hypertension it is old classificatin. for update contact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_international_blood_pressure_guidelines Barodaj (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
update sources of 2015 of hypertesiion and normal bp letest update
[1].
[2].
[3].
[4].
[5].
[6].
(¬¬¬¬) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barodaj (talk • contribs) 13:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (WP:SNOW) I'm not sure why this AfD has been filed - it appears to be a content-related issue. I'd recommend suggesting the edits you wish to make on the Talk page of the article rather than taking this drastic, and frankly ridiculous step. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 14. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 13:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but update ,please follow 2015 guidelines ,dont mislead the public ,becasue classification follows 2003 old guidelines and not follow letest
(¬¬¬¬) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barodaj (talk • contribs) 13:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep, plainly. Something has gone wrong but it can certainly be fixed (by any procedure up to completely rewriting the article). The topic is notable so it's not a matter for AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2017 (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.