Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluorochromasia

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorochromasia

[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)

This is either original research from Autoctono~enwiki (talk · contribs), or badly-mangled semi-automated content about a hapax legomenon. Either way it should be deleted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't quite see what the problem is? (apart from the text being somewhat sub-standard, and a lengthy moronic passage about citation counts, which I just removed) It certainly appears to be a term in use [1], and the description and refs seem serviceable enough for a start. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite seeing the problem either. It's definitely a term extant in the literature, and the text was about average for writing by scientists (in other words, unremarkably bad). It might be better off described as part of a larger article (e.g., fluorescein), but I'm not a cellular biologist and wouldn't want to make a definitive statement about that. XOR'easter (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A simple WP:BEFORE style search (which should have been done before AfD) shows this a property of some cells and is the basis for an assay. With hundreds of GScholar and Gbooks hits each, the topic looks notable to me. The article is a new stub and could use improvement, but there are no problems that would make deletion necessary. Merge as suggested by XOR'easter is a reasonable approach as well, but that can be accomplished by ordinary editing. Hence, keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 15:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 00:04, 12 August 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.