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. Sandstein 09:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Urogenital neoplasm[edit]

Urogenital neoplasm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article, created in 2007, has remained a stub. This is because it is very general in form, suspected I create to match the main headings on some templates; there is not much at all linking together the many different cancers, and because of this, it does not provide useful value as an article. Readers are better directed to specific subarticles than this overly broad article. Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Im rather confused by Tom's reasoning here.★Trekker (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, I think this article is about a topic that is not encyclopedic or notable. It is useful as a category for urologic and genital neoplasms but not useful as an article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are abundant Ghits on the term. Here's a sample. Many variations on the phrase such as "genitourinary" instead of urogenital, and "cancer" or "malignancy" or "carcinoma" instead of neoplasm, suggest even more supporting sources to be found. So, the topic is verifiable and notable. The nom is onto something in that similar summary-level articles such as Nervous system neoplasm and Digestive system neoplasm seem to have been created as organizational aids, pointing from general topographical descriptions to the more extensive detail in those templates. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. If we assume the template ((Tumors)) is logically organized and complete, these should stay. --Lockley (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft Delete This is too broad, per the nomination obviously there is a concept of urogenital tumours, but it seems to be too vague. With so many different tissues in the urogenital tract i.e. bladder, renal, genital, its hard to see how this can ever be expanded, but maybe someone will prove us wrong, hence soft delete. PainProf (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This might work as a dab page. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Honestly, this seems fine to me. It's basically a dab-plus; reader follows the term and is presented with the finer categories to choose from. No expectation that this would ever grow beyond that (being, as noted, too broad), thus if it could be converted to an actual dab, that would work to. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but turn into a disambiguation page - as Elmidae says, this is a "dab-plus" - one sentence defining the term, then a disambiguation to the more specific articles. It's the same as other disambiguation pages that have definitions then disambiguate their topics. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The current version does provide only a definition and the list of different varieties, but it is a significant subject by itself and could be easily expanded to make a much better page. My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2020 (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.