Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clefting Prevalence in Different Cultures

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Mailer Diablo 10:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clefting Prevalence in Different Cultures

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate colletion of information. The article is a collection of statistics relating to incidence of cleft at a technical level with minimal discussion on the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep I see no use in deleting this as a branch off of "Cleft palate". While it's probably someone's research paper, it is academic in nature and therefore gets a free pass by me. The page was prod'd with the editor citing it as "nonsense". With all due respect, I suppose I would call a physics textbook nonsense if I read it, also. Also keep in mind that deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. AdamBiswanger1 05:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. What is the point of the article? That the incidence of "Cleft palate" might vary by population origin? Well that should be dealt with in that article. That the medical field may not be ready to respond to the needs of different cultures or native languages that are present within the US? Well, deal with that topic within some article about providing medical services. This article is a mash-up of data and mis-directed good intentions. Shenme 05:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment delete because it's abstruse? delete because it can be merged? It simply cannot--look at its size and look at the amount of references. Admittedly this is an obscure branch of human knowledge, but that is certainly not a grounds for deletion, especially for something of such an intellectual merit. What we need here is a paragraph dealing with this on the Cleft page and then a Main article: Clefting Prevalence in Different Cultures. AdamBiswanger1 05:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup per Adam. Sourced research and probably too long to keep in the main article. ~ trialsanderrors 05:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Adambiswanger1, but I do agree that it needs a cleanup. tmopkisn tlka 05:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Cleft. If cleaned up and verbiage removed, this would add only a few paragraphs, and they would fit in very well in the larger article. bikeable (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes but that's assuming that everything outside of those "few paragraphs" is useless or unnecessary. It's a very good article, and to remove any information would be, well, removing information. AdamBiswanger1 15:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggested removing verbiage, not information! The article is quite short, and I think it could be converted into a couple of paragraphs and a table or two without losing any information at all. bikeable (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I really don't think that it has so much verbiage, and much of it is references which would be cumbersome to merge over. AdamBiswanger1 15:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge - as per bikeable -- Whpq

In our advance towards a larger and more comprehensive encyclopedia, what can we hope becomes of the Clefting article? We can hope that each section expands, ideally to the point where it requires its own article. That has happened already, so why retard the advance of this article because there is too much information? Can anyone actually look through the article and say in truth that what is being purged in the merger is "verbiage"? AdamBiswanger1 18:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment. IMHO, what is being purged is useless statistics. I see a bunch of statistics about cleft palate without any context about what the statistics mean. Of course, that would require summarising other authors' articles about cleft palate and how the statistics can be interpreted. Also, the clefting article is another matter entirely, very properly split out because it is a separate subject (linguistics v. anatomy). —C.Fred (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
If you read the article, and put on your thinking cap and try to understand, you can make out the underlying theory. Some sentences are clear as day, though. "African Americans have a lower prevalence rate of CL +/- P when compared to Caucasians." Is there some clarification that could be done here? certainly. But what is needed is more content to show the said underlying theory. AdamBiswanger1 23:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean-up well-sourced, specific and informative. I don't find the info all that fascinating, but this is still useful and encyclopedic. JChap (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Cleftcruft. The subject would be a suitable review article for The Journal of Stuff To Do With Cleft Palates, but not for a general encyclopedia. A sentence or two could go in the Cleft palate page.-- GWO
  • Keep per Adam. Possible merge. The nominator quotes WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information as a reason for this deletion, but I fail to see which of the listed subsections are applicable to the article. This is a well reference, if poory wikified, detailed expantion of the cleft article. While currently it may look more detailed then the cleft entry, in time I expect the articles will evolve into this level of detail - and beyond.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Adam. This article does need wikifying, however, that is no merit for deletion. The statistics are important and help to clarify the underlying need for more research in prevalence rates of cleft palate. As the first author of this article, I appreciate suggestions for change and not deletion. I am new to wikipedia and am trying to revise and clean up the page as best as I can as a new user. Please contact me with suggestions. This article should no way be deleted --Chm33 23:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. "The statistics are important and help to clarify the underlying need for more research." That's part of the underlying problem with the article. The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform rather than persuade; persuasive writing starts to enter the realm of point of view. Further, the information presented in articles is supposed to be verifiable from published sources; a shortage of sources creates the problem of either a small article with minimal content (which winds up in AfD) or an article with original research (which, if not cleaned up, also brings it back to AfD). —C.Fred (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with Fred that the article needs some NPOVing, some parts of it indeed read more like an essay (consider the first sentence, which states, without any citation, that the topic "...is an area in a need for rigorous research"). Similar problem applies to the last sentence in third para ("Research on clefting in different countries will help in the health care professional’s pursuit to understand different cultures." - WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball). I suspect it is setences like those that Fred finds objectionable. But the article is not an essay, and after some style adjustments it will be quite encyclopedic - the two examples I quote above are exceptions rather then the rule in this article, and I mention them per Chm33 request for suggestions as to what should be improved. Again, the need to NPOV and adjust the style is not a reason to delete an article. As for statistics, Fred, I don't see your point: they are referenced with academic sources (Harvard style) (thus fullfilling both WP:V and WP:RS) and I have never heard an argument that statistics are unencyclopedic or go against WP:NPOV.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The article may indeed need to be revised and edited of possible essay format per Piotrus comment. I appreciate the response to my need for suggestions of improvement. After improvements and style adjustments are made, there appears to be no justifiable reason for deletion. Information is backed by published sources and there is no persuasion involved. I still appreciate all suggestions for improvement during this process. --Chm33 01:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Adam. I think this article has a lot of information and value to Wikipedia. It's not the most common of topics but that only enhances the need for articles like this. The clean up has already started. Let's give the article time to grow. Agne 05:56, 21 July 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.