Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gross examination

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 per WP:SNOW. Valid and notable stub (non-admin closure). PeterSymonds | talk 08:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gross examination

Gross examination (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Very short article, should be merged into another article. Fails WP:RS. RkORToN 00:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It's a stub, I'll give you that much, but while it seems to be little more than a definition, it's hard to imagine that it can't be expanded. As far as sources are concerned, a bery quick google search turns up a myriad of results pertaining to it, so I doubt it should be hard to find a single reliable source. Calgary (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pathology. Shortness of article is irrelevant to Afd, as can be expanded and there is no time limit. As pathology is not my area, I trust the wikiproject to supply some WP:RS. Marking as {{notability}} SunCreator (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It's hard to imagine that something like this can't be expanded. Obviously encyclopedic, however; solution is to improve, not delete. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep obviously, needs to be expanded. JJL (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as a valid stub that needs work. (Deletion isn't a substitute for improvement). Bfigura ^(talk) 04:49, 9 April 2008 (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.