Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frog genetic defects

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. Where consensus dictates, editors wishing to merge content are encouraged to do so. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frog genetic defects

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

more an essay than an encyclopaedia entry. Title refers to genetic defects but the body of the article discusses non genetic defects. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ - The article itself doesn't even indicate that genetic defects among frogs hold any significance whatsoever and focuses on defects with environmental causes. I quote:

“

The first frogs with these genetic defects were found in the August of 1995 in south and central Minisota [sic]. The herpetologists believed that these were not any inherited defects.

”

Not any inherited defects. That's the exact opposite of genetic defects. However, there are many hits on Google Scholar for the phrase Frog "genetic defects", and although some only mention frogs in passing, several do indeed seem to refer to studies of genetic defects in frogs ([1], [2], [3]). The article does need to be rewritten from scratch, yes, but I think that some notability is established in the scholarly works. If later on in the discussion it is determined that the topic is not suitable for its own article, perhaps we could merge some good information into another page. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 18:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per improvements by User:Northamerica1000, I am willing to change my decision to Keep and rename, although I would not be opposed to a merge. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 16:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~. The subject is quite notable as pointed out above, but the current state of the article is completely unsalvageable. Pending a serious treatment of the topic, it should be deleted.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect/Rename. Even with Northamerica1000's improvements, it still needs a lot more work, a complete rewrite even with planned sections/subtopics. There are numerous unsourced and very likely misleading statements in the article. It needs to be globalized (first observed in Minnesota = dubious) and the things introduced in the lead discussed in the body of the article. The section on Prevention violates WP:NOTHOWTO, is unsourced, and honestly sounds like it was taken from a grade-schooler's lesson on environmental conservation in terms of the information it actually conveys (it's extremely vague). It should be removed. Our article on Ribeiroia ondatrae redlinks amphibian limb malformations which imho is the most accurate title it can have. "Frog" refers strictly to members of Ranidae and not to all amphibians as seems to be the case in the article text. Nevertheless, I am more in favor merging the salvageable parts into Decline in amphibian populations instead, with redirects to give it much better context.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As for the merge+redirect proposal to give the article more context, I think it's perfectly sensible and I certainly would not be opposed to it if it were to happen. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 02:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve – I've done significant work to the article, cleaned up grammar, spelling, etc. Environmentally-caused mutations may correspond to genetic defects in amphibian offspring, and the article is not really significantly off base at this time, per improvements. This article is now easily salvageable. Also, the sources provided above by User:Chris the Paleontologist can be used to expand the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rename to Frog mutation and genetic defects, or something to this effect. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge material to more comprehensive articles. What the article is mainly talking about is "birth defects" in frogs. (Of course they are not really "born," but hatch and then metamorphize.) The issue of decline of amphibian populations and the extinction of species is a tremendiously notable and important topic. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve The article is notable. The articles content is well referenced. It appears the title is inappropriate to the content given. Perhaps a boarder title might be used like "frog mutations". The article continues to need some improvement in its encyclopedic form/style.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2012 (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.