Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptogenic


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Cryptogenic

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This belongs over at Wiktionary, I think. Hard to say. Minimal content, not likely to be any more relevant content to de-stub it. — This, that, and the other [talk] 10:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and... I created a minimal version at wiktionary a few months ago. It has barely been expanded since. — This, that, and the other [talk] 10:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary gives guidance on this, as does User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. The bare adjective doesn't denote a subject.  But the corresponding noun, cryptogenesis, or a noun phrase constructed from the adjective, cryptogenic species, would.  If you want to write about the latter, this is a source to start with:
 * And here's a source to carry on with:
 * No deletion required. Uncle G (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Uncle G. Plenty of scope for expansion of this article on a notable subject. JulesH (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but move to Cryptogenesis. This term appears in technical literature and many Wikipedia articles, and enough reliable sources exist to write a good article on it. Wronkiew (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2009 (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.
 * Keep, but move to Cryptogenesis. This term appears in technical literature and many Wikipedia articles, and enough reliable sources exist to write a good article on it. Wronkiew (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2009 (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.