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. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Achondroplasia in children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is not encyclopedic in nature and has many inaccurate statements. There is already an article on Achondroplasia that is factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdradius (talk • contribs) 01:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisted due to lack of heading. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as dubious medial information or stubify. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously? What makes it dubious...it is a genetic disorder.Sngourd (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 26. Snotbot  t • c »  20:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This topic is clearly notable. The vague, handwaiving assertion of inaccuracy contained in the nomination is extremely unhelpful. Without specific cases identified, the nominator would have us comb through the article sentence by sentence to verify every bit of information before the article could be kept. This expectation of AFD participants is not reasonable. However, just to ensure that the article isn't far afield from mainstream medicine, I've randomly selected a few consecutive sentences to verify. From the "Care of Achondroplasic Children" section:

The home setting for an achondroplasic child should be modified in a way that is fitting for a child with a growth mutation. Toys should be considered and altered to fit the needs of the child, or size of the child, such as tricycles and backyard playground equipment. Other fixtures in the home should be replaced to attainable heights for the children such as light switches or door knobs.

This information is cited to Trotter, Tracy L., Judith G. Hall. "Health Supervision for Children with Achondroplasia" Pediatrics. 116.3 (2005): 771-783. Conveniently, the referenced article is available online. The following text from the reference directly supports the material quoted above:

Consider adapting the home so that the child can become independent (eg, lower the light switches, use lever door handles and lever sink faucets, make the toilet accessible, and supply step stools)

Discuss adaptation of toys, especially tricycles, to accommodate short limbs.

While the excerpt from the article is not written in the same way as the supporting reference, it normally shouldn't be. Properly verifying content requires a willingness to transpose its meaning to syntactically dissimilar source material. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - assuming it's not a total copyvio, this is a notable topic; even rare diseases can be notable. Needs copyedits and rescue. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article was originally written by one person, and had a list of books information came from, plus was longer. [1] Perhaps the author didn't realize an article for Achondroplasia already existed. Anyway, I see there is enough valid information to warrant a separate article, since merging it would make the other one too long. Dream Focus 09:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep To delete an article that is describing a medical syndrome that is proven by evidence would be a mistake. Even if it is rare, that is not a reason to delete it.Sngourd (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2011 (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.