Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robustness (morphology)

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

This looks like a subject that could have an article on Wikipedia but with no editors arguing to Keep this version, there is really no other option here but Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robustness (morphology)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not mean the general notability policy and lacks overall reliable sources. It may also constitute original research, and violates our policy at WP:What Wikipedia is not, as the article looks like WP:DICT. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 04:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 04:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be just a definition. Can't find any relevant articles about robustness as a concept. Mgp28 (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2024 (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.