Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atony

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. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atony

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

Dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure deleting this is a good idea. Medical conditions seem to me to be mostly a priori encyclopedic. The fact that an article does not at present contain more than a definition is not relevant. The relevant factor for deciding is whether the article could be expanded to say more about the subject. I think that is clearly the case here.--Srleffler (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks for sifting through many of our smaller articles, Rathfelder, but I agree with Srleffler, this article is encyclopedic but not yet expanded. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to keep it if there is more to be said on the subject.Rathfelder (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, certainly a subject matter for which more can be written about pathology and pathophysiology. — Cirt (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2015 (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.