Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guy ropes


 * 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 redirect to Guy-wire. The upshot seems to be that "guy ropes" is not actually a name for this group of muscles. This results in a delete consensus, which I'm however implementing as a redirect to the actual meaning of the term, so as to allow access to the contents if somebody thinks they might serve some useful purpose.  Sandstein  22:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Guy ropes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The title for the article is unacceptable because this is not a conventional anatomical term for this group of muscles. The primary topic for the title here is guy rope and we should not have a plural version pointing to a different place per WP:PLURAL. The guy rope concept is being used as an analogy here and there are other groups of muscles in the body which do this, such as those which stabilise the spine and trunk. As this is a medical topic, we should have more precise and accurate terminology, rather than informal and ambiguous language. See DYK for an earlier discussion. My view is that the page should be deleted and replaced by a redirect to guy rope. The text could be userfied if the author wants to rework it.

As an aside, I'm not even convinced that the nautical usage is correct. The term guy comes from the same root as guide and is a side rope used to guide a load into position, when it's hanging from a crane or the like. A standing set of lines used to stabilise a vertical structure such as a mast is more properly a stay – from a Germanic root, meaning to hold firm.

Andrew D. (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose just move the article to a more suitable title. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't have a good alternative currently. There was an attempt to merge to Pes_anserinus_(leg) but there was no consensus for that.  From my reading, this is not common medical language and, per WP:MEDRS this needs to go away until it's done properly, "For this reason, all biomedical information must .... accurately reflect current knowledge." Andrew D. (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Which claims are incorrect? Which sources are invalid? I have never known an article to be deleted because someone objects to the title. My vote stands. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The first sentence which defines the title is incorrect. Such novel usages are commonly deleted as neologisms per WP:NEO.  As for the sources, they do not support this usage.  For example, Gray's Anatomy only seems to have it on page 747, where it is describing a different set of muscles, "The whole vertebral column is stabilized by the 'guy-rope' or staying effect of the long muscles...".  That's talking about the spine, not the leg. Andrew D. (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So that reliable source backs up the title usage? If there are errors in the article, fix them. No need to delete. My vote stands. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that source does not support the usage because it's talking about the spine not the leg. Let's try pinging the other DYK reviewers, who looked at this before: . Andrew D. (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And let's add Doc James, who may be the best person to settle this. Andrew D. (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but the rather clumsy and muddled nomination doesn't appear to have a clear indication of why or how the article fails policy such that it should be deleted, as opposed to simply moved. WP:RM is the best venue for that.  My vote stands. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to Guy ropes (anatomy) - I don't see how a "fresh start" can help. The reliable sources support the title of "guy ropes" specifically. The title is not "informal and ambiguous" since the sources precisely state "guy ropes". There is no other way to write this article and current form is not in violation of any policies. The only time use of "guy ropes" for this article can be voided is when we disregard the sources published by major academic publishers such as CBS publishers and Elsevier as unreliable or when we don't consider having articles about medical terminology that is being practiced in different regions of the world. Usage of a different and specific terminology in some particular part of the world is not a reason for deletion since the term is definately important for and used in certain parts of the world. It is clearly defined and explained in sources which are definitely considered reliable. The explanation of the term is not just a passing by mention either as "guy ropes" cover a whole page and is illustrated by pictures of those three muscles only. WP:NEO says: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." - which the article clearly does. Obviously, as both the sources are detailed books about anatomy of lower limb and abdomen from reliable publishers. And as far as WP:MEDRS goes: "Major academic publishers (e.g., Elsevier, Springer Verlag, Wolters Kluwer, and Informa) publish specialized medical book series with good editorial oversight; volumes in these series summarize the latest research in narrow areas, usually in a more extensive format than journal reviews." - and if the materials published by CBS and Elsevier which clearly state, define, explain and illustrate "guy ropes" specifically are not reliable, then what is?  Ya  sh  !   15:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wouldn´t a move to Guy ropes (anatomy) with Guy ropes redirecting to Guy-wire and a "for the anatomical term"-template on Guy-wire make every one happy as suggested above? I see no reason to talk about deletion JakobSteenberg (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would second that.  Ya  sh  !   15:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Seconded as well. The article isn't perfect, but it's certainly not a WP:TNT case. - Iago Qnsi (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you see my comment on the DYK? At least one of your sources is using this term as an analogy, not as a name. I couldn't find any other source that did use this term as anything but an analogy. If this is used as a name elsewhere, it's not in general English usage, though it may be regionally common. Also, the merge discussion seems to have consisted of two people, Yash and a now-indeffed sock. I think this should be merged, with a stop in userspace along the way if more input from medicine/anatomy experts is needed first. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, . BD Chaurasia says "sartorius, graciilis and semitendinosus form the guy ropes", which makes me lean towards keeping it. However, I am open to a move to my userspace where I can find more sources for the term, if any. Best,   Ya  sh  !   17:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's been suggested, and appears likely on the face of it, that "guy ropes" is a regionalism or an informal or nick-name, or indeed both; if so, whether disambiguated or not, it's not an appropriate title for a medical topic. What we need to know, and what I've not to date been able to discover, is what these three muscles are called in mainstream anatomical terminology and texts. If that can be established we should just move the page to that title; if it can't, then I believe the content should be merged, ideally into our article on the Human muscular system (which, it seems, we unaccountably do not yet have). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Guy ropes are these things These muscles are "acting" like them. They are not called "guy ropes"
 * Also there are a lot of groups of muscles that are "guy ropes" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - and  I would sincerely like to apologize for an error. This discussion made me look a bit further into the details. The book I have been using is the 2012 ed. and there has been a 2013 reprint version which I just checked at my library. The reprint version states: "sartorius, graciilis and semitendinosus form the guy ropes for the tent of pelvis" (an oversight in the 2012 one I assume) - that was the part because of which I had been arguing in favor of this article. As it isn't the case anymore, I wouldn't oppose a deletion. Again, I would say I am really sorry for this.   Ya  sh  !   17:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the concept that groups of muscles form "guy ropes" would be useful either in the muscle article or as a subpage of that article. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * delete - the article was built on an incorrect understanding and creator has withdrawn objections to deletion. if you think this content would be useful in appropriate articles, you can copy the content you created to your sandbox and then paste it in the relevant articles.  Please don't do that with content that has been altered by others unless you attribute per Plagiarism -- Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Yash!, this seems to be a lapsus calami; it appears that "guy ropes" was, as Andrew D. said, intended as an analogy rather than a proper name for this group of muscles, and the passing use of the term, again as an analogy, for a different set of muscles in Gray's has no bearing on this. They are not treated as a group in the two anatomical atlases I have immediately to hand (McMinn's 6th ed. & Tillmann) and the term appears to be an idiosyncrasy of a single source. (My vote prepares a nice soft blanket to lie on in case anyone passes out in formation.) Choess (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and a pat on the back for Yash!. For an article based upon a misunderstanding, Yash! has made quite an impressive lead out of it. But this comment by Opabinia regalis really says all we need to know about this topic. Relevant information could perhaps be merged into other articles, but for now we can probably conclude that this page was borne out of an unfortunate misunderstanding. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  13:06, 2 March 2016 (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.