Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossohyal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Hut 8.5 09:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glossohyal

Glossohyal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article has no context. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I'm sure this article meets criterion A1 of the Speedy deletion criteria, but an admin declined it. I say delete. Agüeybaná 15:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - this is a stub article created today, the terminology and explanation are correct, plenty of room to expand, which is all that is required for a stub article to exist. Chessy999 (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • A sentence does not count as a stub, IMO. Especially an unreferenced one. --Agüeybaná 15:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - just relax and wait for a group consensus to develop. Chessy999 (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
        • If I was any more relaxed, I'd be dead. --Agüeybaná 15:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - well u did post your speedy deletion +tag exactly two full seconds after the article was created and then when an administrator removed the speedy you posted an AFD +tag 13 seconds later, I think somebody is drinking to much caffeine -:) Chessy999 (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per A1. An article with 12 words is neither an article, nor difficult to recreate.-Wafulz (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: It does qualify under A3 However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context. Chessy999 (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notwithstanding that it's a microstub, the word in question seems to fail WP:RS. All I can find are dictionary definitions, and Google thinks that I meant to search for "glossolalia" instead. I doubt that this page will ever be expanded beyond a dicdef, so delete it. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per WP:STUB and per User:David Eppstein's findings. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There does seem to be scientific literature on this specific bone: e.g., K. Takagi, On the glossohyal bone of the gobioid fishes of Japan, with some phylogenetic considerations, Japanese Journal of Ichthyology, 1950. (Note, I haven't actually read this paper, merely found its title in a Google scholar search.) That indicates to me that this can move beyond its current stubby state to a real article. And while I agree that it's currently pretty much a dicdef, I think deletion should be reserved for stubs that are unable to move beyond their dicdef state. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, perfectly valid WP:STUB (which I suggest some editors read). As modified by Chessy999, has context that will allow expansion. Google Scholar results suggest that should not be a problem. I do not think it is appropriate to tag just-created articles as dicdefs or unexpandable just because they are obscure and brief. --Dhartung | Talk 22:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:STUB :-) Stwalkerster talk 20:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, we have a reasonable article on the Hyoid bone, so I don't see why the equivalent structure in fish can't be improved from a stub. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:56, 21 November 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.