Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aicardi-Goutieres syndrome

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 per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Itub (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aicardi-Goutieres syndrome

Delete unsourced oneliner about a rare genetic disorder without any claim to notability or even context on what is disordered or how it is manifest. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responsible for the unsourced oneliner. I apologize. I'm neither sufficiently versed in the aspects of the disease or Wikipedia to create a worthwhile page. Thank you to the contributors that have improved the stub. As I noted in the original discussion page it was redirecting to another unrelated condition of a similar name. 167.73.110.8 (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Mr.KnowNothingGuy[reply]
- No need to apologize. It was a good-faith contribution. Zagalejo^^^ 01:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a quick Google reveals plenty of sources, so I'm sure it could be expanded into a worthwhile article (though I'm not qualified to do so). 82.1.57.47 (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's an explanation of what it is. And there's plenty of more detailed information here. Couldn't you have just gone to a WikiProject for help? Zagalejo^^^ 18:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a somewhat more accessible explanation. Zagalejo^^^ 18:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it worth saving, please improve the article from its horrible condition. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly my area of expertise. I don't want to be responsible for adding misleading medical information. It's not "horrible", though. It's a stub. They're allowed. I see you've made similar articles, like Matelot, Trinidad. Zagalejo^^^ 18:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice redlink asking to be made; settlements are inherently notable notwithstanding someone tagging it for speedy deletion. Genetic disorders are not inherently notable. Huge distinction, dude. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't genetic disorders be inherently notable? Zagalejo^^^ 01:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 20:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a stub for a verifiable disease - Wikipedia should encourage people to add information - that's what stubs are for! No reason to delete. Stephenb (Talk) 20:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of reliable sources out there to demonstrate notability. Just needs expansion by someone with that kind of knowledge. (AFD is not cleanup...)--Beloved Freak 20:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd have thought that any disease that has been documented in medical literature would qualify as notable, no matter how rare. Vquex (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legitimate medical topic. Needs expansion by an expert on the subject. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, a legitimate medical topic with substantial sources available. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references and real world notability. Consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on medical conditions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though Wikipedia is not a specialized encyclopedia on medical conditions. Such an encyclopedia would have a much more extensive article, and list every published reference. McKusick, referenced in the article, is such an encyclopedia, referencing every possible item of information on human genetic diseases. We just give a compact summary, as here. Even a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia appropriately has articles on each defined human disease, rare or common--they're still notable. DGG (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2008 (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.