Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biology of bipolar disorder

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. Closing per WP:SNOW, given the lack of deletion rationale and the eightfold expansion of the article since the time it was nominated for deletion. No prejudice against renomination, provided the case for deletion is articulated. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biology of bipolar disorder[edit]

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

Propose deletion or merge with bipolar disorder, at the very least. Dschslava^Δxparlez moi 19:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The page is still under construction, as there is a lot of info on the pathophysiology of BPD that would be excessive to add to the bipolar page. In a similar way that the biology of depression, mechanisms of schizophrenia and biology of OCD is split, the biology of bipolar should be kept. I don't know why you were so quick to delete to put it up for deletion(29 minutes), but precedent exists for an article of this type. Petergstrom (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - this article does have a lot of information, and while it is true that it could be better structured (the opening paragraph could summarise information in the article better, and this article lacks a conclusion) these concerns would be better discussed on the talk page of the article than here. Vorbee (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article was given 29 minutes of being up before being nominated for deletion. I barely had time to create the skeleton for the article, let alone organize it, and effectively summarize it in the intro and a conclusion.Petergstrom (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is sufficient material for a whole article. Work to improve the article rather than deleting it. Natureium (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2018 (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.