Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manipulating the microflora of the gut


 * 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.  Sandstein  15:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Manipulating the microflora of the gut

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Essay-like article. Not encyclopedic. &mdash; Music1201  talk  09:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - the current article is an essay full of WP:SYNTH, but one should consider potential, not just current state. However, none of the impressive-looking sources deal with manipulation of the microflora, they are just studies on its effects. The article goes far into WP:OR territory by suggesting to intentionally alter it.
 * There could be potential for a merge with Gut flora but it seems redundant to me. Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy Just a WP:Essay. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge Why not merge it with Gut flora? Even if there's not a lot that's not redundant, Gut flora has it's own issues that a few more sources would go towards sorting out (not like these sources would solve it, but they'd be a small step in a good direction). I'd be happy to take the time to do the merge since the original author doesn't seem to be a regular contributor anymore. Heliopolisfirebirdii (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I do agree that a "source merge" could be useful. I do not see salvageable content in the text, though. Tigraan Click here to contact me 09:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Whats a source merge? AIR corn (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I made that up. I meant "using the sources of article A to reference article B" - without merging actual content, in that case. Tigraan Click here to contact me 10:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as there's nothing actually convincingly different to suggest keeping. Restore and Draft only if needed. SwisterTwister   talk  05:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect No need to merge. If we are just talking about the sources then there is no need to merge. Heliobird can use the sources just as a matter of editing procedure. AIR corn (talk) 08:31, 30 April 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.