Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stress (physiology)


 * 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   merge to Stress (biology). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 09:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Stress (physiology)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Confusingly there are two articles that cover the same ground, stress (physiology) and stress (biology). Stress (physiology) is the inferior of the two being much shorter and although references are listed they are not integrated into the text, making it very difficult to work with. At least some of the refs appearing in stress (physiology) also appear in stress (biology) properly integrated - so there is quite a lot of duplication. IMO its almost impossible to clean up stress (physiology) and then try to merge the two articles, which I originally thought of. There is probably little in stress (physiology) that isnt already in stress (biology) anyway. I propose that stress (physiology) is deleted and then stress (biology) renamed as stress (physiology) as it seems to me to be the better of the two names. Penbat (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect into Stress (biology). But I would suggest first getting some input from people who are knowledgeable on the subject to help with the merge. Maybe an RfC would be in order? They might be able to help build consensus on any name change as well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Doing a merge just isn't practical. It would need an expert with access to most of the sources and it would be a lot of effort for very little benefit, there's very little in stress (physiology) that isnt already in stress (biology). I suspect any merge will takes years to get done. Also the choice of name isnt that much of a big deal, one would redirect to the other anyway. IMO the most important thing is to get stress (physiology) deleted ASAP to eliminate the confusion of two articles covering the same ground.--Penbat (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge-- agree this article largely duplicates content on stress (biology). However, the paragraph beginning with the terms neuroplasticity and long term potentiation does not seem to be represented in stress (biology). It is also a well written summary, and seems a shame to just delete. Perhaps it could just be lifted largely untouched into a section called "Overview". Lesion  ( talk ) 13:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - So how do you propose to get round the problem that the refs in stress (physiology) are not integrated ? An alternative idea is to paste the Stress (physiology) text in its entirety onto the talk page of the new single article so it can be used as a resource rather than lost for good.--Penbat (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes lack of inline citation causes many problems down the line, particularly when other uses start adding unreferenced content into it. Do we know who the primary author was? Maybe they are more likely to have access the to the sources. Otherwise seems like it might be easier to find new refs... But, it is not like it is unreferenced. Seems strange to delete it/remove it to a talk page because no-one is available to merge it properly right now (that's not an attack on anyone, I include myself ... too much on atm). If merging only the paragraph I highlighted above, would not be so bad to stick all the refs from stress (physiology) at the end of the paragraph, as a temporary measure perhaps. Lesion  ( talk ) 12:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The primary work was done by User:SarahMorse back in 2010. This was the only article she ever worked on. She obviously never realised that stress (biology) already existed at that time. The chances of contacting her are zero. A cleaner idea that I have seen done before is to set up the entire text of stress (physiology) as a subpage of the new single article and a note about the existence of and link to that subpage prominently displayed at the top of the talk page. Anybody who wanted to do serious work on the article would inspect the talk page for ideas.--Penbat (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge Same topic. - Sidelight 12 Talk 04:29, 18 March 2014 (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.