Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstitial cell


 * 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. There is no consensus to delete, but there is also no consensus on whether this article should be a disambiguation page, or a broad-concept article. Please discuss the latter on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) w umbolo   ^^^  21:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Interstitial cell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOT this page is purely definitional. Should be deleted in favour of the wiktionary page Tom (LT) (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic with significant literature on the subject. Should be expanded rather than deleted. --Michig (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 11:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I tend to agree with the previous !vote. Stubs can look like dictionary definitions, but when there's room to expand (as there is here), and when the topic is a legitimate one that people would look for in an encyclopedia (as is the case here), keeping the stub is the way to go. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Move to List of interstitial cells, per FourViolas below. I think it's important that we offer the reader a clear and simple explanation of this term, because I couldn't find one in the first page of Google results. I'm not sure the list, per se, will be of much use to anyone but I am sure many readers will find the explanation useful. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as a list per User:FourViolas below. I'd like the new list article to begin with a lay-reader-friendly paraphrase of Sanders et al's definition quoted below by FourViolas: "... a morphological term denoting a variety of cells of differing origins and phenotypes occupying spaces within the interstitium between the cells most prominent in defining a given tissue." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete "Interstitial" simply means "in the space between". If we keep this we may as well have articles called "deeper cells" and "bigger cells". It's not a thing. You use it when you're talking about one type or group of cells and want to refer to any cells that lie between those cells. We have an article on "nation" but, for good reason, we don't have one on "interstitial nations: nations that lie between other nations." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete "Interstitial" is not a scientific term per se and thereby difficult to see how it can be expanded or the utility in doing so. Cells that are interstitial can sometimes be found in other areas -- macrophages can also be within blood vessels, the lymphatic system and tissues proper.  A similar spatial term, "caudal", does not have its own wikipage, but exists as a definition on Anatomical terms of location. Both terms are on wiktionary, but the interstitial entry should be updated to include a biological definition.  Also, a conduit page for Interstitial already exists with the wiktionary link. Skingski (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Tricky On the one hand, the concept of an interstitial cell is so generic that there is really nothing to say about it that is not bound up with a specific use (in which case the coverage should be there, not here) - i.e., if the list of examples is removed, there is nothing to state save the one-sentence defininition. The term per se can't really be expanded on further. This would suggest deletion. - On the other hand, it's very frequently used in composites and a valid search term, so a WP search sould lead somewhere. But no individual use can be claimed to represent the primary meaning, so I don't see where a redirect should lead. - Feeling a bit stumped here... -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @ how about Interstitium? --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Considered that, but not great either - it's a specific use on its own, and many uses have nothing to do with it. See for example the interstitial cells in the pineal gland - these have nothing to do with the interstitium, being merely located between instances of the "main" cell type of the organ. - Still, maybe one could make an argument for a good terminological connection and hence use it as a compromise redirect target. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete i sort of understand why somebody might want to see all the kinds of cells that are between things. this could ~maybe~ be a list article, but I don't much care for list articles. Could better be a category.  Or maybe a disambig page? Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. It may not be an exactly defined biological topic, but it is a frequently used term with sources available.  DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 13:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting both because of at least partial balance, but also because there has been various discussion as to potential redirects etc

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Saw this when it first was listed, but I was pretty split myself. I'm in line with Skingski and Elmidae's thoughts though. In the end, it's only describing where the cell is. It can be relevant in specific articles as a term, but the qualifier doesn't really confer notability here. I'm not really seeing a great redirect though, and I don't really foresee any great loss in just deleting it either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete every adjective-noun pair is not notable simply because it is often found in combination. It may be a good Category name, but without any unifying characteristic other than being found within what is itself not a uniform tissue, there is nothing else to say than that interstitial cells are cells, and they are in an interstitium, and that doesn't cut it.  Agricolae (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Move to List of interstitial cells, with notability of the latter given by the following sources:
 * "Interstitial cells are defined as cells pertaining to or situated between parts or in the interspaces of a tissue. These cells are located in the connective tissue and under the umbrella of this terminology we find reunited cells such as the interstitial cells of Cajal (ICCs), the testosterone-secreting cells of the testis (Leydig cells), the cells in the medulla and cortex of the kidney, the cells found in the connective tissue of the ovary, the aortic valve interstitial cells, etc. [1,2,3,4]. As one can perceive, all these cells differ as to origin and phenotype. Moreover, histologists consider that the usually described cells of the connective tissue might also be viewed as interstitial cells, e.g., fibroblasts, mast cells, macrophages and blood-derived immune cells (plasma cells, neutrophils, eosinophils, and lymphocytes). From the point of view of pathologists, all cells expressing vimentin can be identified as interstitial cells [5]."
 * "Interstitial cells” is a morphological term denoting a variety of cells of differing origins and phenotypes occupying spaces within the interstitium between the cells most prominent in defining a given tissue. In smooth muscle tissues fibroblasts, mast cells, macrophages, and interstitial cells of Cajal meet this definition. While mainly considered structural or immune cells by many morphologists, interstitial cells have come into prominence because they drive or contribute to the normal functions of smooth muscle organs, and remodeling or loss of these cells can lead to a variety of motor disorders. This review describes the physiology of the fibroblast-like classes of interstitial cells, which can include interstitial cells of Cajal (ICC), ICC-like cells, “Cajal-like” cells, fibroblast-like cells and teleocytes in various anatomical descriptions of smooth muscle tissues."
 * Overall it looks like the various cell types considered interstitial are so diverse that they are only studied (and highly notable) as subtypes, there are nonetheless reliable sources explaining their relation to each other and giving basic facts about them as a group, making them a great candidate for a list per WP:LISTN. Such a list would also serve a useful function as a souped-up disambiguation page. FourViolas (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking into GScholar hits further, it looks like most discussion of organ-specific interstitial cell types is much more complicated than "the following cell types are interstitial in organ X": see e.g. Taylor et al. 2003 on ICs of the cardiac valve, Choi 2010 on ICs in the developing lung, etc. This would make it hard to summarize them in detail in list form, so the best setup for list of interstitial cells would probably be to start with the small amount of context about ICs in general provided in the sources quoted above, then link each entry out to a main article like Interstitial cell of Cajal or, more likely, a subsection like Pineal gland—many of which would probably have to be added to the parent articles before linked from the table. E.g.:
 * Overall it looks like the various cell types considered interstitial are so diverse that they are only studied (and highly notable) as subtypes, there are nonetheless reliable sources explaining their relation to each other and giving basic facts about them as a group, making them a great candidate for a list per WP:LISTN. Such a list would also serve a useful function as a souped-up disambiguation page. FourViolas (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking into GScholar hits further, it looks like most discussion of organ-specific interstitial cell types is much more complicated than "the following cell types are interstitial in organ X": see e.g. Taylor et al. 2003 on ICs of the cardiac valve, Choi 2010 on ICs in the developing lung, etc. This would make it hard to summarize them in detail in list form, so the best setup for list of interstitial cells would probably be to start with the small amount of context about ICs in general provided in the sources quoted above, then link each entry out to a main article like Interstitial cell of Cajal or, more likely, a subsection like Pineal gland—many of which would probably have to be added to the parent articles before linked from the table. E.g.:

FourViolas (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC) FourViolas (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @ I think a category of interstitial cells may be most appropriate for what you are proposing. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I thought about that, but there are some problems. First, cell types may be interstitial in some tissues but be the primary components of others (e.g. smooth muscle cells), so it's not that useful to know that some cell type is interstitial somewhere. Second, I'm not sure what pages we'd add to such a category; there are only a few cell types, like interstitial cells of Cajal and mesenchymal cells like fibroblasts that are well-studied primarily as interstitial cells.
 * The basic use case I'm trying to address is someone coming across a reference to ICs in the paper they're reading about heart valves, kidneys, the pineal gland, or whatever and wanting to know more; I'm hoping they could come here, learn what an IC is in general, and then follow a link through to a subsection on the importance of ICs in whatever tissue context they were interested in in the first place. FourViolas (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm doubtful whether the list solves this problem, as we have discussed above "interstitial" is an adjective that describes the location of a cell, so I (personally) think it would make more educational value to redirect to interstitium and provide a small amount of examples there; I don't see the value of a categorical list, and if it is to be categorical then a category may suffice. At any rate, what would you think about expand an existing article (List of distinct cell types in the adult human body) thereby retaining your planned list of interstitial cells and also saving you some effort :)? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I think I'll stick with my !vote. Precisely because "interstitial cell" is not a cell type per se, I don't think it's that useful to try to list them at the existing list you mention, and if we did we'd have to duplicate entries from higher on the list (because smooth muscle cells, e.g., are interstitial in some tissues but not others).


 * The value of a categorical list is that it lets people see which cell types are interstitial in particular tissues, which a category would not do. This is important, because people writing about the ICs in the tissue they specialize in often talk about "interstitial cells" without acknowledging that they're only interstitial relative to that tissue, so you can only figure out what they mean by looking up "kidney interstitial cells" or whatever. A list's intro would explain that this is what the confused person needs to do, and the list's body would allow them to do that. FourViolas (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Plenty of available sources which talk about this as a topic:
 * Maybe it should be reworked as a list or dab page for stylistic reasons, but it's certainly worth keeping as a title. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Upon additional thought, a list would make more sense than a dab page. Dab pages are for resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous (WP:DAB).  That doesn't fit here.  But List of human interstitial cell types would make perfect sense.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is that if you look further into those sources, they're all describing different entities that behave in different ways and have little to do with each other: interstitial cells of the testicle, of the renal medulla , of the ovary , and of intestinal neurons (the last one actually seems to be aiming for a little more generality, but it's from 1966 and pretty clearly out of date). I agree, though, that the page is worth reworking into a list, as I've explained. FourViolas (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should be reworked as a list or dab page for stylistic reasons, but it's certainly worth keeping as a title. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Upon additional thought, a list would make more sense than a dab page. Dab pages are for resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous (WP:DAB).  That doesn't fit here.  But List of human interstitial cell types would make perfect sense.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is that if you look further into those sources, they're all describing different entities that behave in different ways and have little to do with each other: interstitial cells of the testicle, of the renal medulla , of the ovary , and of intestinal neurons (the last one actually seems to be aiming for a little more generality, but it's from 1966 and pretty clearly out of date). I agree, though, that the page is worth reworking into a list, as I've explained. FourViolas (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is that if you look further into those sources, they're all describing different entities that behave in different ways and have little to do with each other: interstitial cells of the testicle, of the renal medulla , of the ovary , and of intestinal neurons (the last one actually seems to be aiming for a little more generality, but it's from 1966 and pretty clearly out of date). I agree, though, that the page is worth reworking into a list, as I've explained. FourViolas (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep It is sensible to develop this as a disambiguation or broad concept page. Wiktionary is irrelevant in my view; I never use it and nobody else would in this case because it has no entry for this title. Andrew D. (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. The article should probably be a disambiguation page only, removing the definition part and just listing examples/related articles. Redditaddict69 (click here if I screwed up stuff again) (edits)   19:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support a disambig page for the reasons stated above--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as argued by . Nick Moyes (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Dabify or Keep as a notable broad-concept article. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a term of art in histology. It does not just mean "between" but refers to cells that are not specific to a particular organ, but instead form the binding for those cells that are specific to organs. James500 (talk) 07:06, 20 August 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.