Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnosity


 * 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. Majorly 00:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Carnosity

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

WP is not a dictionary. YechielMan 00:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. -- MarcoTolo 00:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean up. This is not just a dictionary definition, it is an actual disease. Arjun  01:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. This seems interesting and, as a medical condition/disease, I'm sure there is more that could be said. Treatment? Prognosis? Rarity? --Ox-Puller 02:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This seems to be a borderline case illustrating the fine line between what should and should not be transwikied to Wiktionary.  It is true that currently the article is merely a dicdef.  However I believe there is potential for it to grow into a proper encyclopedic article (even if a short one).  I think only those dicdefs should be moved to Wikitionary which cannot possibly be expanded into proper articles and will forever remain just that, dictionary definitions.  I don't think this is the case here; it is of course a merest stub, but all things begin small. -- Ekjon Lok 02:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand per Arjun. —dima/s-ko/ 02:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is unverified information. Without sources, it ought to be deleted.Nick Graves 03:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Expand per Arjun. JRHorse 03:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A carnosity isn't really a standalone disease or condition, more a specific medical term -- much like saying ecchymosis vs bruise. Since carnosity links to tubercle (another stub), what about a merge? (Note to Admin: this is not intended as another !vote, simply an alternative to my original transwiki suggestion above). -- MarcoTolo 03:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. As a medical condition, it is encyclopedic. Article has potential to be expanded. &mdash;Brim 06:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; it's not a medical condition as far as I can tell. It is a medical term, as well as a general term., and I don't think an encyclopedia article could grow from this alone. Wouldn't be opposed to having it included in another relevant article, however. --Fang Aili talk 16:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but provide better referencing and expand. Yamaguchi先生 03:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. I agree with Fang Aili that it seems to be a medical term, not an actual condition, but it still needs a dictionary definition on Wiktionary. As for Wikipedia, no objection to a merge or redirect to Tubercle (anatomy), as long as someone can conclusively say that they're actually the same thing. Quack 688 09:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - being a stub is no reason to delete a page. --h2g2bob 18:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep no matter what it is, a medical condition or a disease, it is encyclopedia material. So keep and give it a chance for expansion and referencing. ← A NAS  Talk? 02:44, 18 January 2007 (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.