Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ophthalmic zoster

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 to Herpes zoster ophthalmicus. Whether to merge at Herpes zoster ophthalmicus or at Ophthalmic zoster can be hashed out on the talk pages. Randykitty (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ophthalmic zoster

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

Superseded by Herpes_zoster_ophthalmicus Jkokavec (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]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/2015 March 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge What has happened here? Why wasn't the original article updated? It seems that Jkokavec has created a new article covering the same topic but using a different name. Surely the Herpes zoster ophthalmicus article should be merged to the original Ophthalmic zoster as an update, then that content moved to the "Herpes zoster ophthalmicus" article, leaving "Ophthalmic zoster" as a redirect. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and move Herpes_zoster_ophthalmicus to it - Elsewhere we have favored common names, rather than latin names or more complicated names. I favor moving the more developed, more complicatedly-named article to the simple, less-developled article, and ultimately redirecting to it. BakerStMD T|C 14:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not clear on why there was a second separate article created, but clearly both terms are used. Herpes zoster ophthalmicus does seem to be the more common term (inaccurate as google hit counts can be, 157,000 vs 14,000 is probably significant), but I have no strong opinion on which should be the main title. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Consolidate the info, merge the histories. If someone wants info on this topic a search will lead them to the correct, merged article. Best Regards, Bfpage |leave a message 21:50, 28 March 2015 (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.