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 dermatome (anatomy). v/r - T P 03:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dermatome (embryology)[edit]

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

Very little information in the article. Looks more like a dictionary entry in stead of an Encyclopedia entry. Mbch331 (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep This article can cover dermatomes in embryo but it needs expansion and reliable source under WP:MEDRS. I think author must be given time to expand this topic Dr meetsingh Talk 19:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article doesn't have to be complete to keep it, but it needs more information than 1 line even to be an ((stub)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbch331 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

keep — this is a truly notable body part, as, almost certainly, are all named body parts (yes, even the Philtrum). i added four sources to newly created further reading section in article, but could have added dozens more. this body part is implicated in herpes zoster and other notable diseases. really, afd isn't a place to say that articles suck, it's a place to say that the subjects of articles make the articles inherently unencyclopedic. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete There is nothing this article could say that ought not to be covered in the existing article dermatome (anatomy) instead. This article has no useful content, and there is really no existing information that belongs in it. If dermatome (anatomy) was such a huge article that it could not be expanded, then this might be justified as a subarticle, but that's very far from being the case. Looie496 (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - More sources in article now. It appears that the nominator may not have followed the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which, if true, nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. There's no mention in the nomination regarding the availability of reliable sources. The nomination's basis is upon content within the article, rather than upon searching for reliable sources, as required per WP:BEFORE requirements. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aargh! None of the listed sources relate to embryology. There is no question that dermatomes are notable enough to deserve an article, but we already have one, dermatome (anatomy). Looie496 (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

comment— striking my keep per Looie496. i'm not as careful a reader as i like to think i am, it seems, and i don't know enough about this to have an opinion — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Redundant. We have dermatome (anatomy). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to dermatome (anatomy), add info on development and on phylogeny. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[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.