Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Developmental dysfluency


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 11:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Developmental dysfluency

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reasons
 (1) The terms "developmental dysfluency" or "developmental disfluency" are rarely used in the scholarly literature. For example:
 * Google Scholar search for "developmental dysfluency" (exact phrase, any time, no patents, no citations) returned only 72 results.
 * Google Scholar search for "developmental disfluency" (exact phrase, any time, no patents, no citations) returned only 137 results.
 * Google nGram search for "developmental dysfluency" (exact phrase, 1800–2008) found zero results.
 * Google nGram search for "developmental disfluency" (exact phrase, 1800–2008) found zero results.

A total of 209 results for the phrase (both spelling variations) might sound like a lot to some, but contrast those numbers with Google Scholar searches (any time; no patents; no citations) for stuttering (97700 results), or dyslexia (203000 results).

(2) When the term is used, it lacks a consistent definition. One sees three different definitions for the phrase:

(a) Normal development stage - Some websites and occasional articles define "developmental dysfluency" as the normal initial struggles young children(~ages 2–5) exhibit when learning how to speak, e.g., speech hesitancy, mispronunciation, or stuttering.

(b) Classification - Other publications use the phrase as an umbrella term for speech disorders such as stuttering or cluttering.

(c) Speech disorder symptoms - Developmental dysfluency is defined as abnormal speech.

(3) The article's statistics, including the fact that no other articles link to the page, provide additional evidence for the term's relative obscurity. Basic stats for the article: 30 revisions since 2007-12-03 (+56 minutes), 15 editors, 86 pageviews (30 days).  (Note: Later today, I will add a couple of references to support my point #2.)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I added a couple of citations as promised and copy edited the nomination (diff).  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the nom has made a good case for this condition, or at least the terms for it, not being mainstream. Still, a search showed the term is used in some reliable sources, so it might merit a mention on Wikipedia. Note that we also have speech disfluency, which overlaps this article. Perhaps a redirect or a sentence mentioning the term in speech disfluency would be a way forward? -- 21:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the term is used in a smattering of reliable sources. Unfortunately, those sources assign different meanings to the phrase. If this article described those various definitions and noted that the term is used in only a small number of peer-reviewed scholarly articles and textbooks, the article would at least present accurate information, although I would still question the notability of the term. ¶ The speech disfluency article is only marginally better than this one. Adding a discussion about a confusing, obscure phrase to that article would need to occur along with an overhaul of the article as a whole.  ¶ Most importantly, I appreciate you taking the time to comment! :0)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:GHITS is not a reason to delete. It exists is a reason to keep. a search reveals that the term is used in reliable sources. Wm335td (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Response from OP: I did not search Google, I compared use of the terms in the academic literature (Google Scholar) and in books (Ngram), so WP:GHITS is not applicable. ¶ Regarding "... the term is used in reliable sources", I wrote above: "I agree that the term is used in a smattering of reliable sources. Unfortunately, those sources assign different meanings to the phrase. If this article described those various definitions and noted that the term is used in only a small number of peer-reviewed scholarly articles and textbooks, the article would at least present accurate information ...."  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep This is an important topic in the field of stuttering (and nonfluencies in general). It is a much studied field as children often go through a phase of nonfluency and it is important to distinguish this from stuttering symptoms. The most common name used in the literature is probably “normal nonfluency”  so maybe a move to that is justified, but delete certainly is not. Slp1 (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Response from OP: I wholeheartedly agree with your first two sentences. In your last sentence you wrote, "so maybe a move to that is justified". I initially thought you were referring to a Wikipedia article titled "Normal nonfluency", but there is not such an article on the English Wikipedia. I am therefore not sure what you mean by "moving" the article. Thanks!  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Articles can be renamed or moved if another title seems better. See WP:MOVE. Slp1 (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Sources have been added to the article. Relisting for firmer consensus about their ability to satisfy GNG.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep OP's reasoning is flawed. There appear to be citations. Since this is about a term (de dicto), not what it signifies (de re), point 2 is fallacious. Orphan does not mean unnotable. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page)  02:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, as there is no rationale for deletion that proves that the article is unfit for Wikipedia. Orphaned articles are not necessarily bad because they are orphaned, as this can be fixed. A lack of recent changes means nothing about the quality of the article. Rare usage in scholarly literature does not inherently make a phrase non-notable. A lack of a consistent definition does not prevent multiple definitions from being present. If it were widely debated, then a disambiguation page could be made at this article title, and this content could be moved or merged elsewhere. However, I don't believe this is the correct route, as most definitions are similar. Utopes (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2019 (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.