Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speech pathology

Delete. I don't think that this merits {{delete}} deletion because it looks like the person who created it was doing it for a legitimate reason. But I feel that there is no need for a placeholder and that its creator can just make it over again when he/she gets done. – TTD Bark! (pawprints) 19:17, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

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 of the debate was - kept

Speech pathology

Another apparently lost/orphaned VfD nom, as it doesn't appear to have ever been posted to the main page (based on it never making it to "old", and lack of votes). Procedural/keep--was a speedy candidate IMO when tagged (one of a series of 'an article is being developed' IOU placeholders), but has been greatly expanded since. Niteowlneils 22:27, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keep. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 23:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Borderline. This is what I call a valid stub. Speech pathology is like psychology in this regard: imagine that the psychology article said, "Psychological services are offered by a licensed psychotherapist in your area." I.e. the title is the entire field of study, and the article concerns only the clinicians. The content isn't invalid, but it's not an appropriate lead. Geogre 00:56, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Lousy article, encyclopedic topic, send to cleanup -- Jmabel | Talk 07:54, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
keep. Intrigue 20:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
keep. It's a valid subject, but needs to be moved to cleanup WhiteDragon 22:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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.