Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypomenorrhea
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. Sandstein 21:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hypomenorrhea
Delete contested prod; one editor thought that this article, a duplicate of wiktionary's definition, is appropriate for the encyclopedia, despite WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. It's a dictionary entry, it gets deleted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. This is an encyclopedic subject with plenty of scope for expansion from sources such as these 753 scholarly articles and these 572 books. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, as this is a real description of a condition of the human body and may be related to or caused by various things. I agree that it is a WP:DICTDEF now, but it bears improvement. See [1] and [2] for starters. Better refs can (and should) be found. Frank | talk 21:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Phil Bridger. This is a technical medical concept, not a mundane dictionary term. Plenty of reliable sources. Deserves an expanded article. Nsk92 (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Legitimate medical topic, potential for expansion far beyond a mere dicdef. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Sources certainly warrant this article's expansion as a legitimate entity of medical science. WilliamH (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless expanded it is simply a dictionary def and doesn't belong. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Legitimate topic. Just needs expanding. Bryan Hopping T 15:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- As my delete above says if the article is expanded than I'm happy to change from delete to keep. Giving you the opportunity to expand the article and take part in this discussion was reason I made sure you were notified in the first place. Personally, I don't want to set a precedent for one-line dictionary definitions to be kept because they MAY be expanded. If they ARE going to be expanded in the near future by those that know more about the subject or contributed the original article though that is a different story and a different precedent. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I think if we expected every article to come to life as a fully written, mature article, this encyclopedia would be a very poor resource indeed. Certainly this is not a high-quality article at this point, but it is valid and useful...way more so than any number of deletion candidates that survive, I might add... Frank | talk 02:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Please note I never said articles had to be fully written and/or mature when they came into existence. I said that I didn't want to see MAY be expanded to become the norm around here. I'll gladly discuss the subject in general at my talk page. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. It is the norm already. It is called a STUB. --Itub (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment So Dictdefs are stubs and stubs are allowed so dictdefs of notable things are therefore allowed? Again if that is the norm it shouldn't be. Creating a one-line article and leaving it to sit should not be encouraged. Heck at least my sloppy rewrite makes the article less dictionary and hopefully a bit more useful. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Please note I never said articles had to be fully written and/or mature when they came into existence. I said that I didn't want to see MAY be expanded to become the norm around here. I'll gladly discuss the subject in general at my talk page. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I think if we expected every article to come to life as a fully written, mature article, this encyclopedia would be a very poor resource indeed. Certainly this is not a high-quality article at this point, but it is valid and useful...way more so than any number of deletion candidates that survive, I might add... Frank | talk 02:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- As my delete above says if the article is expanded than I'm happy to change from delete to keep. Giving you the opportunity to expand the article and take part in this discussion was reason I made sure you were notified in the first place. Personally, I don't want to set a precedent for one-line dictionary definitions to be kept because they MAY be expanded. If they ARE going to be expanded in the near future by those that know more about the subject or contributed the original article though that is a different story and a different precedent. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Jasynnash2, but sources and expansion will be required. Stifle (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. All human medical disorders are appropriate article topics. Every one of them with even only a definition should be kept as a stub until it can be expanded. This is one of the cases where there is no doubt at all that a full article can be written, but even then, we dont delete stubs. all articles begin with a definition. DGG (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a stub on a clearly notable topic that needs expanding, not something that needs deleting. Yilloslime (t) 04:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Stub about a notable topic. AfD is not cleanup. --Itub (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep.
Possibly merge with Oligomenorrhea.--Eleassar my talk 12:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose merge per WhatamIdoing. --Eleassar my talk 09:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Should it be a redirect to Oligomenorrhea in the same way that Hypermenorrhea redirects to Menorrhagia? Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I think we should find references to answer that question before instituting such a redirect. I am not a medical expert, but as I understand it, hypomenorrhea is simply low flow. Oligomenorrhea is a pattern of same over time. (I actually think the same relationship exists with hypermenorrhea and menorrhagia, which might make the redirect inappropriate there too.) To give an analogy, if you have a seizure, it's a seizure, but if you have a number of them over time, it may be diagnosed as epilepsy (and it may not). Nevertheless, you've still had a seizure and you wouldn't necessarily want to read an article on epilepsy the first time someone tells you you've had a seizure. Frank | talk 12:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Agree with User:Frank. Maybe Bryan Hopping can help as the creator of the article? Or someone else who has commented previously can help. Either way for seems to be a snowball keep as only 3 people have said delete and I've since corrected the article from the original dictdef that it was nominated as. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep and oppose merge. Despite sloppy use by non-specialists of the term oligomenorrhea to mean hypomenorrhea, the terms are not synonymous. Properly, hypomenorrhea is a low-volume flow; oligomenorrhea is infrequent flow (total cycle length > 35 days). See this and this for the distinction, which is important for assessing menstrual changes after (for example) endometrial ablation -- a procedure that affects the volume of menstrual flow, but not its frequency. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - thanks - that's what I would have said if I knew what I was talking about. Care to comment on hypermenorrhea, which currently redirects to menorrhagia? Frank | talk 12:06, 16 May 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.
