 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.PNG)
 | The contents of the Conus artery page were merged into Coronary arteries and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Small stub covered on Coronary arteries page - shall merge -- Iztwoz ( talk) 18:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
You better provide references for this article, or it might get deleted. I'm no expert, but I've never heard of this, is it new information. Saksjn ( talk) 14:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I googled the text and found that it's blatantly copied from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=482564. Since this information is in the public domain it's not a copyvio (right?). However, the WP article references a study which is not present here. Article needs to be cleaned up and a re-write wouldn't hurt. - TexMurphy ( talk) 15:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think blatant copying even from a public domain is allowed. If the article was rewritten with more information on the study and some sources it could stand. But if that doesn't happen it might fall prey to a deletion tag. Saksjn ( talk) 21:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| The contents of the Conus artery page were merged into Coronary arteries and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Small stub covered on Coronary arteries page - shall merge -- Iztwoz ( talk) 18:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
You better provide references for this article, or it might get deleted. I'm no expert, but I've never heard of this, is it new information. Saksjn ( talk) 14:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I googled the text and found that it's blatantly copied from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=482564. Since this information is in the public domain it's not a copyvio (right?). However, the WP article references a study which is not present here. Article needs to be cleaned up and a re-write wouldn't hurt. - TexMurphy ( talk) 15:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think blatant copying even from a public domain is allowed. If the article was rewritten with more information on the study and some sources it could stand. But if that doesn't happen it might fall prey to a deletion tag. Saksjn ( talk) 21:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)