Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emergence phenomenon


 * 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 delete. --Core desat 04:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Emergence phenomenon

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is poorly written and has remained so for a number of months without any editor touching it. The way in which it is written means that the article is not useful in any way, and until somebody comes along and completely starts again from scratch, I think we'd be better off without it. This is a contested prod. John24601 16:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- Not only does the IP user 75.214.38.201 appear to be very single-purpose, they even removed the cleanup tag! It looks like this information belongs in a medical dictionary, or might even be a neologism. -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 17:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete-The article is unreadably bad as it stands, and appears to describe a set of symptoms occuring when people awake from anaesthesia, although you have to read to the end of the 'article', and have a bit of medical knowledge to realise this even then. It also looks like it's been cut and pasted from another source. "Emergence phenomenon" only gets 176 hits on Google, not much as emergence phenomenon is also a statistical term, as well as a business and psychological one. It's awful, let's get rid of it.  Felix Felix  talk 19:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not just redirect to anaesthesia? Pascal.Tesson 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * While redirects are cheap, do we even want to keep neologisms around? Is it a plausible search term, or a suitable synonym? Or maybe ?  -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 20:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See Redirect - it is often inadvisable to redirect a sub-topic to its parent, especially in cases like this where the sub-topic is such a miniscule area which doesn't have its own section in the parent topic article. --John24601 21:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - as a phrase, PubMed fails to recognise the term. No evidence provided that reliable sources consider the term valid or in routine use, and as at best trivia therefore need not be included at all. Delete the jibberish. David Ruben Talk 22:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Remove the article, and if there is any valid content it could form a subheading as part of anaethesia. Owain.davies 07:34, 30 May 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.