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 no consensus for both. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entaxonic & Mesaxonic[edit]

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

As it stands, a dictionary definition. Once you think about it though, it's unlikely to grow into anything meaningful. Individual species might chart transitions to or from "entaxonic" limbs, but this page isn't. Also mesaxonic by the same measure. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've added an AFD for mesaxonic and redirected it here. These should both be handled together. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
week keep - I think a few paragraphs could be squeezed out, such as at digitigrade and plantigrade, etc. If not, then there should probably be an appropriate article that both definitions can be merged into, whether currently existing or just waiting to be made... - UtherSRG (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to limb development. I don't see much hope of standalone articles for these two, but the broader topic probably deserves mention in that parent article. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. I think these are interesting terms, and probably notable. However, as the nom says, these articles are dicdefs. Wiktionary is the place for dicdefs. Currently, neither of these words is on Wiktionary (I just checked). Maybe they should be there instead of here. ----Smeazel (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 17:40, 8 June 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.