Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acquired dyskeratotic leukoplakia


 * 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   merge to Leukoplakia. there is consensus for a merge.  DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Acquired dyskeratotic leukoplakia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability. One pubmed hit from 1988 with keywords "Acquired dyskeratotic leukoplakia" :. Is this a historic synonym for something else? I've been working on leukoplakia and I have not heard this term at all in any modern text. Most google results seem to be text directly copied from this wikipedia page or refer to the above 1988 paper. Lesion ( talk ) 11:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Further to my above comment, normal idiopathic leukoplakia could be described as acquired (i.e. not developmental), and dyskeratotic. I believe this is a minor historic synonym for what is now just generally termed leukoplakia. Lesion  ( talk ) 11:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  14:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  14:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If what you say is indeed true, then we can merge it into leukoplakia. --JB Adder | Talk 14:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% sure that Acquired dyskeratotic leukoplakia = leukoplakia, (but I can see that there is only one scientific paper that has it as a keyword...) so I'd like to leave this proposal open a while to see if anyone knows more about this... Lesion  ( talk ) 15:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a merge and redirect would be reasonable here. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect as per above. If later studies come forward that provide new information about this particular sort of Leukoplakia, then an article might be appropriate - and having the redirect in place means that we would have the history available for that article. Seems to be more of a "Not Yet" as opposed to a "Not Ever", but I agree that the coverage just isn't there yet to support a standalone article. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See also WT:MED, where this issue was discussed briefly. User:Novangelis found another reference to "acquired dyskeratotic leukoplakia" in a dermatology textbook, which suggested that there has been only one reported case of this condition, referencing I think the same 1988 case report. It seems that "acquired dyskeratotic leukoplakia" was a description of a single case where there was leukoplakia of multiple mucosal surfaces, and is not a recognized diagnosis. There does not seem to be any paper published using this term (as a keyword/word in abstract) since 1988. Personally, I don't think this single case is notable for its own page, or to be mentioned on leukoplakia. Leaving a redirect in case of future uses of the term is an usual reason not to delete, but I can see the benefits of this.  Lesion  ( talk ) 16:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 20:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)




 * Merge to leukoplakia. Even if there is just one incident of it, I think a sentence mention of a unique case makes sense for the main article. It's not asking too much for just a sentence. Silver  seren C 21:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I realize I've talked a lot here, but having considered all the info that has been brought now, I am sure that delete with no redirect is appropriate. Not sure that a descriptive term used in a single case report from the 80s (and therefore arguably not even a real diagnosis) is notable for inclusion into the leukoplakia page. Lesion  ( talk ) 22:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge. How many people need to say "merge"? Merge or WP:SMERGE can very often be the best option if notability is questionable. Thincat (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't greatly mind a redirect, since I am fairly sure no-one will ever type this exact combination of words into wikipedia, but what are we supposed to be merging? It is a single line stub article, and the content might seem a little out of place on the leukoplakia page ... if we described it accurately, e.g. "A single reported case of multiple leukoplakia lesions involving the mouth, vagina, ... was reported in 1988, which the author described as "acquired dyskeratotic leukoplakia". Lesion  ( talk ) 22:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, in this case there is scarcely anything to merge. A redirect, keeping history so anyone can later merge if they want to, would be fine by me. I don't see any harm in merge, however. An accurate description should be edited in and if the mention got removed later from leukoplakia that would also be a purely editorial matter. Thincat (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete with redirect - no need for merge (basically the same outcome). -- Scray (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2013 (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.