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 redirect to Dysdiadochokinesia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adiadochokinesia[edit]

[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)

As per wikipedia is not a dictionary. This condition is covered by Dysdiadochokinesia and Adiadochokinesia is a specific instance of this. In fact in this textbook here the chapter relating to the condition is titled "Adiadochokinesia or Dysdiadochokinesia". This topic is at best a single line in the Dysdiadochokinesia article I would argue. This is outside my expertise so please correct me if I have something wrong. EvilxFish (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

note I used the word "chapter" when referring to the textbook but should have said section as it is not the entire chapter. EvilxFish (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to dysdiadochokinesia. Compare e.g. aphasia and dysphasia, where the latter redirects to the former. TompaDompa (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per aphasia and dysphasia, as suggested by TompaDompa, wont be a problem. Adiadochokinesia is the extreme extend of dysdiadochokinesia. But I am wondering whether all human symptoms deserve an article. All human symptoms are surely encyclopedic, they have been subject to extensive examination. Has this been discussed already somewhere in WP? Cinadon36 08:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for the latter part of your comment, it comes down to how is the information best presented. Would it be better to have a single article that discusses all of them, especially if there isn't that much to say about them individually, or is there enough content to warrant a separate article? EvilxFish (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dysdiadochokinesia as they're related but this doesn't meet WP:GNG. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Dysdiadochokinesia--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to have to be a merge and redirect, without deletion, because there is content in Adiadochokinesia that isn't in Dysdiadochokinesia (e.g., the history of its discovery). I'm a dyed-in-the-wool mergeist, but I find it a little odd that editors are saying the subject doesn't meet GNG when multiple books are cited in the refs... (EvilxFish, please use Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers rather than AFD when you believe two articles should be merged.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: ah will do in future, sorry, there may be one or two other proposals I have put forward that are similar, in that I believed the topic should be a redirect or merge rather than a deletion per say. I just assumed all of it was handled though AfD, my bad! EvilxFish (talk) 06:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Wikipedia's a complicated place. Nobody expects anyone to know all the things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to dysdiadochokinesia.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2023 (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.