Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiple motor neuropathy with conduction block
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
conduction
- 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 delete. Nja247 09:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Multiple motor neuropathy with conduction block (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This article is an unsourced fragmentary outline that has existed for a month with no attempt by the author to flesh it out, and no response to a query. It isn't even titled correctly; it should have been called "Multifocal motor neuropathy with conduction block". With that title, it would be a valid topic for a Wikipedia article, but the article should not continue to exist in its current state. If the creator desires, I suggest that the content be userified. Looie496 (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy if the creator requests it. Otherwise, or if the creator cannot be reached, Delete. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The relevant customary term is apparently "multifocal motor neuropathy" The abstract of the authoritative Cochrane review on PubMed seems to explain the situation. The present Wikipedia article does not seem helpful in starting a real article on the condition. The phrase itself is based on a single article: [1]. DGG (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - After reading through the relevant sections in Merritt's Neurology, the appropriate article is Multifocal motor neuropathy with a section for that with "conduction block". There is very little in this article that is worth keeping and taking across to the (currently unwritten) main article. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2009 (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.