Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ureotelic

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 No Consensus to delete or move to Wiktionary therefore default Keep. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ureotelic

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

Dictionary definition, no potential for expansion. Powers T 02:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Trees RockMyGoal 02:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and should be moved to the Wiktionary. phøenixMøurning ( talk/contribs ) 02:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete to Wiktionary where it belongs. -- Alexf42 02:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Unsure about this one. Although it looks like a dictionary definition, it actually refers to a technical scientific term rather than to a mundane everyday concept. No problem with reliable sources here[1]. Couldn't this actually be expanded into an article about how the process of excreting urea actually works in different types of organizms? Nsk92 (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Changing to Delete and move to Wiktionary per LtPowers' comments below. Nsk92 (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • We agree that it refers to a "technical scientific term". Articles about terms, however, are precisely the domain of Wiktionary and explicitly not the domain of Wikipedia. As for your final question, the answer is yes, and that article is at Urination. Powers T 14:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This scientific categorization belongs in Wiktionary just like this does. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikitionary: it belongs there. It's a dictionary definition. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 06:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary. Can not be expanded beyond dictionary definition. --Eleassar my talk 15:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikitionary because it is a definition, and only a definition. Happyme22 (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or at least merge/redirect. This can surely be expanded, although perhaps a better title would be ureotely, which is the noun, instead of the adjective. For example, an encyclopedia article can go beyond a definition and discuss the evolution of ureotely, its metabolic aspects, its regulation, its ecological impact, how it varies between species, and so on. At the very least, such a plausible target for linking and searching should be redirected somewhere reasonable. Urination, suggested above, is not. It deals mostly with human urination and talks about urination techniques but never even mentions urea. A more plausible target would be something like Urea#Physiology. --Itub (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, many reliable sources available to demonstrate notability. Per Itub, I believe this could be expanded into an encyclopaedic article.--BelovedFreak 20:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. There's a great deal to be said here. I'm not quite certain what form of the word (or possibly a phrase) should be used for the heading--the noun is rather uncommon. DGG (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand --Kyknos (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominator. To address some of the points above: If Urination is currently primarily about urination in humans, I see no reason that couldn't change to be about urination in general. Ureotely is an aspect of that process, for sure, but I don't see any evidence that the concept is distinct enough from urination and/or urea to merit its own article. It's easy to say "keep and expand" but without some indication of how this article could be expanded without overlapping the two other articles, I have to remain skeptical. Powers T 14:58, 23 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.