Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siderophile


 * 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. Consensus is that it's now a valid dab page.-- Kubigula (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Siderophile

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

Not a proper disambiguation page, merely two dictionary definitions that (per WP:DICDEF) don't meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Eleassar my talk 14:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Delete. Only one of the two linked articles actually includes the term. No objection to creating a proper article about siderophilia (or whatever the correct noun form is) if there is more to be said than simple dicdefs; but nominator is correct that this is a disambig page without a raison d'etre. Deor (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Question. I'm not really familiar with AfD procedures here, so let me first express my concern:  This is, as indicated by the editors above, a real term.  Wouldn't it be better to somehow express a need for it to be improved, with a warning that, if nothing changes within a given time period, that it will be deleted as inadequate?  I'm just concerned that, once deleted, it may not return. Unschool (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article about this adjective has been created in 2005 (at first as a redirect). There was more than enough time to improve it, but not much changed since then. If you can expand it, do so, though I personally don't think it is expandable and there's no point in indefinitely prolonging the deletion of dictionary definitions. If deleted, it may always be recreated at some later point even if I don't really see a need for it to return. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Eleassar my talk 16:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * keep and write a page for the missing article. DGG (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This looks like a valid disambiguation page to me. Both siderophilic bacteria and siderophilic elements seem like subjects that could and should support Wikipedia articles. There was an existing redirect to siderophile element, which I changed this page to link to; I added a new stub for siderophilic bacteria based on a list I found in haemochromatosis. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that both entries have articles is more of a reason to delete the dab page then if only one of the entries has an article. A two-article ambiguity, is resolved with a hatnote on the more notable page pointing to the other article. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a third entry. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * keep and expand siderophilic bacteria. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 22:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as disambiguation page, now that two reasonable targets ave been identified or created. --Itub (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as disambig. --SJK (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2008 (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.