Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myringomycosis

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 as a valid stub. The Nom appears to have been made in good faith. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myringomycosis

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. And shouldn't it be Myringomycosis aspergillina anyway? Anjouli (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gary King (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We could have a decent article on this disease some day if TexasAndroid weren't busy stomping on the first shoots of spring as they tentatively poke through the ground, and the "per nom" sheep voters weren't following him around, with their hobnail boots on to ensure that any potential re-growth is squashed flat before it begins. After all, James Paterson Cassells and Rober Wreden wrote about Myringomycosis at some length. (One has to ask: If you know the full name of the disease, why are you supporting Wikipedia not having an article about it? Do you not actually want Wikipedia to be an encyclopaedia?) This is one of a whole load of bad deletion nominations by TexasAndroid, who seems to be under the impression that we delete stubs by the sneaky back door route of copying them to Wiktionary and then repeatedly nominating them for deletion by whatever means necessary. He has already managed to remove the stub that we had on royal progresses, that could one day have included what Thomas Babington Macaulay had to write on the subject if it had been left to grow. He now wants to get rid of our perfectly servicable stubs on barbed broaches (an instrument used in dentistry that we could have a detailed article on), breviloquence (a much discussed aspect of Biblical Greek grammar), registration (organ) (a subject about which various organists have written entire books, such as Everett Ellsworth Truette's Organ Registration or Gordon Balch Nevin's Primer of Organ Registration), implicit cognition (a subject in psychology that, similarly, has entire books devoted to it), stowage (which, for example, has books with glaringly obvious titles such as On the stowage of ships and their cargoes written about it), and the axon reflex (something which a physiologist could come to Wikipedia write about at length were TexasAndroid not so happily nominating the stub about it for deletion — and some people foolishly wonder why Wikipedia has such a problem with the people who would actually sit down and write articles being driven away by cluelessness!). And those are just a few of the articles that he's nominated for deletion in one day alone. Goodness knows how many more good stubs will disappear if other editors don't take action to stop this. Please help to save Wikipedia from this wanton destruction! None of the three editors above are doing Wikipedia any good by what they are doing. 86.20.169.102 (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness. Where to begin?

I base these deletion nominations on what is in the article, not on what could be in the article. And what is there in each of these is a dictionary definition of the term. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Dictionary definition articles simply do not belong on the project. And that is what these nominations are about.

And nothing in the earlier PROD or current AFD nominations will do what you so "doom and gloom" portray they will do. You lament the loss of speculative future encyclopedic articles on these subjects. But the deletion of dictionary articles at these spots will in no way prevent or preclude the future writing of such quality articles. Again, these nominations are against the current contents of these articles, not against better future contents.

You say I remove these by "whatever means necessary", but that's simply not true. There is one final "means" that I have not and will not use on these articles, but that I would be perfectly within my rights to use. I'm an admin, and thus can hit the delete button myself. Transwikied dictionary definition articles qualify for A5 speedy deletion. If all I wanted was for these all to be gone, gone, gone, I would have been perfectly within my rights to delete most of them myself under A5. I've even had people gripe at me before because, instead of A5ing these things, I toss them up for PROD deletion in general.

But I toss them up for PROD because PROD allows for other people to second-guess me. To contest the PRODs, and give me reasons why these should not be deleted. Once the PRODs are contested, I then can either accept the reasons for contesting, or desagree and take them to AFD. In the case of a lot of the current AFDs, the PRODs were removed without useful reasons given for contesting them. And while that is perfectly within the bounds of PROD, if I see a PROD removed with no useful reasoning given, then it is well within my rights to move on to AFD and force the person contesting to give reasons why they should not be deleted. If the person contesting has good reasons, then they will persuade others to their viewpoint, and the AFDs will end in Keep. Phil Bridger has responded to several of my AFDs with Keeps. A couple of my AFDs are already overwhelmingly looking like Keeps. So be it. I may disagree with Phil, but the results are the results.

If you have reasons for these articles to not be deleted, then instead of ranting about my posting them to AFD, your time would be far better spent in posting Keep responses on them, detailing exactly why in each case you think the article should remain. I suspect your arguments will be more stuff along the lines of what could be at each one, instead of addressing the problems that there are with what is there now. I disagree with these arguments in general. But in the end, it's not me that you need to persuade, but rather the other editors who come across these AFDs and, ultimately, whatever admin comes through to close them.

Enough for now. I suspect that this debate is far from over, but that's enough of a response for now. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, AfD has always been about the topics and what the articles could be. Not about the current state of the articles. AfD is not cleanup. --Itub (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A valid stub capable of being expanded on an encyclopedic subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a stub with potential, I don't see the hurry to delete it. --Itub (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's only marginally more than a dicdef, but it is more than a dicdef. Dethme0w (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid stub. AndyJones (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in spite of 86.20.169.102's lengthy ad hominem. Seems to be a generally recognized condition. (Whether TexasAndroid has made thousands of other inappropriate AFDs is not relevant to whether this article should be deleted. 86.20.169.102, you won't convince anyone with arguments like those.) Chuck (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my mind to redirect to otomycosis. No references in PubMed. Dorland's Medical Dictionary defines it as "otomycosis of the membrana tympani" [eardrum]. Nearby entries in Dorland's suggests myringo- is a prefix referring to the eardrum, but is less common today than tympano-. However, no PubMed entries were found for tympanomycosis either. Chuck (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For what it's worth, the single ref for the definition actually dates from 1876. (The given date is that of a reprint.) Tim Ross·^talk 00:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.