Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prenate

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 redirect to prenatal development. Sandstein (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prenate

The article is only a definition, and duplicates content of similar aerticles like Embryo. The page should be transwikied to Wiktionary. EncycloPetey (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STUB says "a "definition" may be enough to qualify an article as a stub". I'm sorry that I don't have enough information to add, but surely someone else does. What if there were articles for tree, bush, flower, etc., but none for plant. ☺ (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that an article on plant would (and should) contain much information that could not be placed on an article about tree, flower, etc. I can't imagine that an article on prenate could ever include much information at all, at least not that wasn't able to be better placed in other articles. The term is seldom used in scientific literature, textbooks, etc. precisely because it isn't a useful grouping in terms of what meaning it carries. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki. Is there any evidence that this grouping is in fact a useful one? We have no article on humans and chimpanzees, even though that's a legitimate clade.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that nobody has/had made it yet does not mean it shouldn't/shouldn't've be made. This is different because it is a life stage. What if was an article for every person on earth, but none for humans? Someone doing a report on prenates should not have to look through 4 different articles. ☺ (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Prenate" is an interesting word that I hadn't heard before. It seems to be synonymous with the more common term "unborn" which doesn't have an article either. So, delete or transwiki.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to prenatal development or something similar. That article can appropriately contain just about anything that would go in prenate. So Awesome (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to prenatal development or soemthing similiar, as per So Awesome. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above.--Berig (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki I added the stub template, assuming that someone could add more to the article, but seeing that there is no more to be added, it belongs in Wiktionary. J0lt C0la (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: author and only major contributor has been banned. (Just an FYI). J0lt C0la (talk) 01:56, 24 April 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.