Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veterinary surgery

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Veterinary surgery

Inane article with no content, not even suitable for a dictionary definition Acyso 01:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - this is quite obviously expandable into a great essay. It needs authors, not deletion. - Richardcavell 01:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Richardcavell, if someone with more specific knowledge of the subject could fill in some history and whatnot, this could be a pretty good article. -- H·G (^words/_works) 02:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Richardcavell. His "needs authors, not deletion" comment sums it up beautifully. Agne 06:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Ophthalmologist redirects to Ophthalmology, Optometrist redirects to Optometry, Dentist redirects to Dentistry, etc. Perhaps Veterinary surgeon should redirect to Veterinary surgery. Medtopic 06:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a stub, not a dictdef. Ace of Sevens 06:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Move veterinary surgeon to this page. It covers all the necessary as per Medtopic. JFW | T@lk 06:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Not suitable for dictionary definition? Wow, that's a new one...and anyway Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and we don't delete topics simply because they're stubs either. --Mad Max 07:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, there is room for expansion. I do not think that veterinary surgeon should be moved there. It does not talk about surgery, just about the career. Also, it is U.K. centric. -- Kjkolb 07:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Deletion should be based on context, not content. Even if there is no content now. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 11:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep stubs should be expanded, not deleted. WilyD 13:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: With due respect to my fellow Wikipedians, are y'all on drugs? It's a single sentence, a predicate nominative. "The sky is that thing up there." That's not an article. It's not a stub. It's a fact, and this particular fact is a dictionary definition. One of the oldest principles of the deletion policy is that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia, while Wiktionary is the dictionary: do not eat disk space with duplication. This thing could be deleted under G1 as a speedy delete, and it must be deleted as a dictionary definition in the regular AfD sense. If people want an article on veterinary surgery, they should write one. Until then, a dictionary definition violates policy. Geogre 13:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. In its current state it is a one sentence "dicdef" but this subject matter clearly has the potential to move beyond anything that is suitable for a dictionary, which is why the stub should stay here in the encyclopedia. I, personally, do not feel comfortable expanding the stub due to my utter and complete lack of knowledge in this area but looking at Google, I found a number of sites with encyclopedic content that shows me the potential of this article in the right editors hands. Like History of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University's history as a leading educator in Veterinary surgery, Veterinary wound management with items relating to surgical care, and this doesn't include all the articles that popped up recently due to interest in Kentucky Derby winner Barbaro's injury and surgery. To echo Richardcavell again, this article needs authors not deletion. Agne 16:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It needs authors to begin it, as there is nothing there now that is allowable by our policies. That's the problem. The amount of work the imagined and invited authors will put in is total, and yet the history will hold onto this inadequate insult of a fact as the origins? Why? What is the difference between what is there and nothing at all? What, functionally, is gained by this dictionary definition? If I were going to write on it, I would use my sneaky speedy delete super powers and then just start from scratch, as I think this kind of thing just gets in the way of an article, and it surely doesn't invite one. Geogre 17:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Geogre, this is a case mark example of a stub. Yes, it is a humble begining but it's not insulting nor is it useless. The very purpose and benefits of stubs is that it invites authors to expand it. We have these stub categories so that someone who is knowledgeable in that field can look at the current stubs and work on expanding those within their realm of knowledge. I am an active watcher of the "Wine stub" category and I know I'm not alone. I would encourage the humble beginning of any wine related article because if it's taged with a "wine stub", eventually someone will get to it to make it into a great article. I am sure that there are those with Veterinary background who will come across this Veterinary related stub (which there needs to be a template for) and help expand the article. Agne 17:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Veterinary surgery is a subset of Veterinary medicine, which is already a rather short article, so there's no need as of yet to expand Veterinary surgery into its own article. wikipediatrix 17:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a stub. Wikipedia:Stub defines a stub as "not so short as to be useless ... which generally means three to ten sentences". This is one trivial sentence that explains nothing not self-evident from the article title. Redirect to one of the several vetinary articles that actually exist. — Haeleth Talk 18:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Veterinary medicine until this article has a reason to exist. wikipediatrix 17:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Put it to sleep; i.e., delete. Perhaps redirect to Veterinary medicine. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep As a veterinarian I may be a little biased, but Medtopic has expanded this article very nicely, and if you give me a couple of days I will do the same. This article could be a good way to show the difference between human and veterinary surgery. For instance, it could give detail on the most common surgeries performed by veterinarians and some of the different anesthetic and surgical techniques required for work on animals. --Joelmills 04:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Nice additions Joel (and Medtopic too). It helps to give life to the potential of this article. I would encourage all those who vote delete to take another look and see what you think. Agne 02:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Veterinary medicine or Expand. Joelmills makes a good point above, it could be very useful and informative article. -Colonial One 14:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I went ahead and removed the stub templates. I think we have addressed any concerns about stubbiness. --Joelmills 03:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Wow, good job to all who expanded the article. Wikipedia would have had one less great article had this "useless" stub been deleted.--Mad Max 03:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I never really put out a vote, but seeing how the article has been expanded and elaborated, I'm all for keeping it. (Nice pictures) Acyso 06:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, though more references and sourced material would give this article a better look.Smeelgova 04:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (changed vote). I'm convinced. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:10, 31 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.