Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biological fluids

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 no consensus to delete; default to KEEP (but my preference would be that editors work toward merge). - Philippe 05:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biological fluids

Subject should be a category, not an article Stanley011 (talk) 06:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC) (BTW, I followed wikipedia's instructions ver batim on this and for some reason it messed up the formatting. Does anyone know why this is? Thanks. Stanley011 (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This isn't in good shape as an article, but the point seems to be that from a bio-engineering standpoint biological fluids have properties in common, even if they are all different in composition. This figures into the design of medical equipment and prostheses. --Dhartung | Talk
Keep and cleanup. Looking at the Biological material disambig page there doesn't appear to be an existing article on the same subject. Needs cleanup though. -- Roleplayer (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Body fluid, merge any needed info. This topic already has an article. Earthdirt (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and expand Real subject. Body fluid is a somewhat different concept. The two articles are very different. Change title to the singular per MOS. DGG (talk)`

Comment I respectfully disagree, though the approach to the articles are different, the topics are the same. The article biological fluids merely focuses on the biomedical engineering and physical properties of body fluids. So yes, the articles are different, but really Biological fluids should just be a section called "Biomedical engineering" in the article "Body fluid", which could definitely use the extra expansion anyway. Earthdirt (talk) 03:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too broad a topic, simply a dictionary definition. -- Dougie WII (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand Article only refers to 1 aspect of the topic, a Medical aspect of it is somewhat different, see [1]. Relevant 2 WikiProjects added to Talkpage. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 12:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge to Body fluids, at least until such time as substantially more information justifies a split. Otherwise Keep. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Why wasn't this posted on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Medicine? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge - (terminally dire rather than Dhartung's "not in good shape"), but clearly discussing the same substances albeit different aspects of their physical properties - so merge as a section of Body fluid as per Earthdirt's suggestion. It would be like claiming "bricks and mortar" as an article on construction materials should be distinct from "bricks with mortar" on method of construction with these items and then point out that Brickwork is quite distinct. So just merge what risks being forks and make free use of redirects. David Ruben ^Talk 00:19, 17 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.