Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flexibility

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. While there is some discussion on whether this article should be kept or redirected, all commenters have unanimously agreed that the material should remain in some form. (non-admin closure) Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flexibility[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary - and this seems to be just an expanded list of definitions, most of which don't agree with the lead. If expanded even more it would be at least 5 articles. dougweller (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to range of motion, as this article identifies that as a more proper term. Workplace flexibility conceivably could be its own article, but under that title, and there's not currently enough material for an article. The other sections are non-notable. Baileypalblue (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Switching my vote: Redirect Flexibility to Flexibility (disambiguation) per Explodicle, merge Physiology section of Flexibility to Flexibility (anatomy)

Redirect to Flexibility (disambiguation), which includes both common uses of the term and a wiktionary link. I think engineering flexability is notable. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with the contents of Flexibility (disambiguation) and then change Flexibility (disambiguation) to redirect here, as suggested by Tyciol below. --Explodicle (T/C) 02:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, voting to delete something like this is irresponsible. Redirecting to things like range of motion as suggested are better. That's what flexibility means in common phrase. More specifically, flexibility refers to half of one's range of motion, the ablity to flex a joint, whereas extensibility would refer to the ability to extend a joint. Also, rather than direct to disambiguation, if there is no home article, wouldn't it make more sense to simply relocate the disambiguation page to Flexibility to do away with the parenthesis? Tyciol (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. --Explodicle (T/C) 02:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A redirect or a dab page would be fine, anything but what we have now. dougweller (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this could be expanded and sourced very easily. Bearian (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Also, there are articles in several other Wikipedias. Bearian (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right on both points. I don't know about Wikipedia in other languages, but in English "flexibility" can mean multiple things, so sorting it out through disambiguation would be helpful. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:22, 21 January 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.