Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fasciacyte


 * 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 merge to Hyaluronic acid.  Sandstein  08:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Fasciacyte

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Bit of a corner case, but it appears that this term was coined and then referenced exactly 3 times in 7 years (along the lines of "there's also this hypothetical thing called a fasciacyte"). I suggest this does not constitute sufficient uptake and/or verification for an article, which would be based on the original publication alone. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm not strictly sure if SpinningSpark has cast a !vote, and in any case there would still need to be further discussion
 * This could possibly be merged to Hyaluronic acid but I am concerned that the status of this research has not been established. Wikipedia should not be stating that these cells definitely exist when there is no evidence that other scholars have confirmed this, or even taken an interest in the work.  It may be TOOSOON to be covering this on the basis of just the one original paper.  I wouldn't be too concerned about the neoligism as such – if a human cell type exists then it is going to get notable enough to have an article.  If it ends up with a different name, we would just have to move the page to the new title. SpinningSpark 23:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect / merge to Fascia . This article is a needless fork and can be better displayed in the context of the main article, fascia. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I support the suggestion made by . --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss where to redirect / merge to.
 * For the avoidance of doubt, my !vote is don't keep a standalone page. I'm undecided whether it should be kept as a redirect.  If it is redirected, the target article should state that this is based on one research paper, and not that the existence of this cell is an established fact. SpinningSpark 17:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the presence of such cells may be hypothetical, albeit I was the one who wrote the Faciacyte article. The recent publication (in 2018) revealed that proposed hyaluron producing cells have round shape while other two studies from the same researchers in 2011 (published in Surg Radiol Anat) and 2013 (published in J Anat) reported that those cells rather had elongated shape. The results are contradictory here. In the mean time, I believe the article could be merged to Hyaluronic acid saying something like "The term fasciacyte was coined to describe fibroblast-like cells that synthesise hyaluronan.", citing all three previous papers. What do you think? And of course when there is enough evidence there can be a standalone page. --Athikhun.suw (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Hyaluronic acid: I am a (very!) non-expert, probably like most of our readers, but as the resident layman, I find reasoning wholly convincing. I also echo the suggestion that it is merely TOOSOON rather than never; it's clearly a field where "new" discoveries are relatively common.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  08:03, 16 October 2018 (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.