User:CFCF/sandbox/ANATNOTE

I've been considering if our project could do with a guideline similar to WP:NOTE about anatomical notability, or if we should simply apply the notability guideline more vigorously. I'm unsure whether this could go under WP:MEDMOS, although it is possible.

The reason I suggest we need to do something is because the general notability assessment on Wikipedia has as of yet not been enough. I've found editors have been wary to delete anatomical content, on the presumption that it is always notable.

I have three points I think we need to sort out:

1. – WP:NOTE gives the suggestion that it may often be better to have a main article on a subject than many small ones in order to benefit the reader. For this reason I would suggest certain articles be merged, when there isn't enough content to justify a full article. For example when muscles are grouped together in the fashion that the quadriceps femoris are, we should merge these in the cases when the resulting article is better. Eg. vastus lateralis, vastus medialis, vastus intermedialis, articularis genus muscle, rectus femoris.

2. – We've ended up with a vast number of articles that have virtually no viewership and haven't been edited since creation in ~2006 when they were taken from Gray's anatomy. TA has some 8000 entries, which makes our over 10000 articles seem somewhat odd. Some of these are perpetual stubs, and are very unlikely to ever be expanded. Some seem to be more than stubs, but if you strip away general images (which only show the major structure they emanate from) and the infobox you're left with a sentence or two. Ex. temporal branch of facial nerve (3 sentences, dubious references, all images are available in other articles). , you expressed a fear that merging this content into main articles would lead to a list type article. My suggestion in such cases is that if there is a risk of articles become lists, that we simply create list articles, for example a: Branches of facial nerve, which bring all these branches together. If any of these is decent on its own it can simple be summarized briefly and linked from the branches article. This would also have the benefit of creating a better overview of articles.

3. – TA entry as a measure of notability: This will seldom lead to any real issues, because TA is so expansive, and it will also allow us to clear away a number of impossibly insignificant articles Multiple TA entries on a single article could be summarized using an infobox for every entry:
 * Human anatomy structures without TA entry are per definition not notable, ex. Levator ani nerve and should be merged to main articles. (A TA-entry does not imply notabily either).