- 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no delete !votes (
non-admin closure)
Dea
db
eef 21:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Pneumocyte
- Pneumocyte ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article seems largely redundant, due to the existence of Type I pneumocyte and Type II pneumocyte, which are both more detailed than this existing article. Furthermore, I'm not aware of anything that would be inappropriate for those two pages that would fit in this article. Anything particularly notable could be discussed in a new article.
I would suggest a merge, but as far as I can tell there is limited info in this stub that could be incorporated into those 2 more specific articles. While summary pages do exist for some topics, with more specific articles for particular topics (e.g. cells types/proteins/enzymes), with only 2 cell types I don't think the pneumocyte subject warrants this type of summary page. Cmastris ( talk) 14:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator. Based on the article history and your other points about a summary, I was probably too hasty suggesting a deletion. Hopefully we can instead try to fix some of the article's issues and expand it a little more. Cmastris ( talk) 18:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep As we are an encyclopedia, and so have a lot of ground to cover, our preference is to cover material in a summary style for the general reader. The page in question does a good job of explaining the topic succinctly. Readers who want more detail are provided with appropriate links. Forcing readers to straight to go the detail would not be so sensible. For one thing they might have to choose a type before they understand the difference between them. The numbers are little help, as they are not meaningful. Andrew D. ( talk) 14:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 15:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 15:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 15:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep – The Type I and Type II articles were split from this one in this diff. We can't delete this article because then we would lose the history. Also I agree with Andrew D. that it is OK to keep this article as a kind of disamb page. – Margin1522 ( talk) 17:13, 29 December 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.
- 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no delete !votes (
non-admin closure)
Dea
db
eef 21:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Pneumocyte
- Pneumocyte ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article seems largely redundant, due to the existence of Type I pneumocyte and Type II pneumocyte, which are both more detailed than this existing article. Furthermore, I'm not aware of anything that would be inappropriate for those two pages that would fit in this article. Anything particularly notable could be discussed in a new article.
I would suggest a merge, but as far as I can tell there is limited info in this stub that could be incorporated into those 2 more specific articles. While summary pages do exist for some topics, with more specific articles for particular topics (e.g. cells types/proteins/enzymes), with only 2 cell types I don't think the pneumocyte subject warrants this type of summary page. Cmastris ( talk) 14:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator. Based on the article history and your other points about a summary, I was probably too hasty suggesting a deletion. Hopefully we can instead try to fix some of the article's issues and expand it a little more. Cmastris ( talk) 18:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep As we are an encyclopedia, and so have a lot of ground to cover, our preference is to cover material in a summary style for the general reader. The page in question does a good job of explaining the topic succinctly. Readers who want more detail are provided with appropriate links. Forcing readers to straight to go the detail would not be so sensible. For one thing they might have to choose a type before they understand the difference between them. The numbers are little help, as they are not meaningful. Andrew D. ( talk) 14:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 15:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 15:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 15:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep – The Type I and Type II articles were split from this one in this diff. We can't delete this article because then we would lose the history. Also I agree with Andrew D. that it is OK to keep this article as a kind of disamb page. – Margin1522 ( talk) 17:13, 29 December 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.