Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deafness

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. — CharlotteWebb 07:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deafness

This keeps poping up on my watchlist and I keep wondering what to do with it. It appears on the face of it to be a POV fork of hearing impairment. Although the logical place for it would be deaf rather than deafness, deaf is a dab between deafness (which is aliased and points to hearing impairment) and deaf culture, which is a long ramble about how only the totally deaf from birth are really properly Deaf (with a capital D). This article is a halfway house and is largely subjective. As a point iof principle the lead is completely wrong anyway, asserting a minor subculture meaning on a par with the accepted definition, and as the lead is a summary of the whole article (except in this case with even more weight given to the subculture) I think that's a fair indication that there is something fundamentally wrong. Guy 23:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Hearing impairment. bibliomaniac15 01:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Some people may be offended by the idea of merging this article with hearing impairment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superlex (talk • contribs).
  • I forgot to sign? Huh, that's so unlike me. My bad. - Lex 12:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Lex, let me take a stab at it to save it rather than just chucking it. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 16:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • stabbed it, hopefully this'll calm some itchy trigger fingers. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 17:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article (like many) certainly needs improvement, but it also needs to exist. Redirecting to Hearing impairment, with its physiological emphasis, is not sufficient. The disambiguation page at Deaf is horrible for links. We need a page on deafness in general, including physiological, cultural, and literary aspects -- probably with sections with things like "Main article: Hearing impairment" and "Main article: Deaf culture". (And yes, Deaf culture has serious POV problems now.) The proper title for such a page is Deafness (which Deaf should redirect to). The article now at Deafness (at least the stuff before the TOC) is a fair beginning. --Toby Bartels 18:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep in complete accord with Toby Bartels. - Jmabel | Talk 00:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep rather than a fork, I think that the arguments set forth here make sense. It is reasonable to have a large, clinical article about hearing impairment and to do so there will need to be subsection articles such as deafness for more general issues. As long as it is written in a NPOV fashion, deafness is an acceptable article. InvictaHOG 10:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve, seems like some good improvements have already been made. Deafness is certainly more than just hearing impairment, and exploring that in an encyclopedic fashion is entirely appropriate. Themindset 19:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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.