Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marker degradation


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  C T J F 8 3  chat 09:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Marker degradation

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No sources found. No idea what that even means. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Russell Earl Marker. Doesn't seem to warrant an article of its own. Nothing to merge as it's already mentioned in that article, but redirect would be useful.-- Beloved Freak  23:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  --  Beloved  Freak  23:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bfigura's comment. A 7 story feature should provide ample scope for expansion.-- Beloved Freak  23:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. If the American Chemical Society calls this discovery a "National Historic Chemical Landmark", it is probably notable. This reference helps explain what "marker degradation" means. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - as the ACS had a 7 story feature on it. Apparently this enabled the production of the birth control pill, among other drugs. -- B figura  (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Russell Earl Marker for now - deserves its own entry eventually. -- MarcoTolo (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the recent additions to the entry, I think its now a useful stub. Keep seems appropriate. -- MarcoTolo (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Might possibly be merged to progesterone in its current form, since the title is a bit confusing, but obviously worth keeping. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep topic requires expansion but is notable. And please do not hide science content in biography pages, a very annoying habit. V8rik (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely; this might find a place in progesterone, the substance made by the process, but does not belong on a biog page. The only real problem is that the label is not well known enough to figure out that "Marker degradation" is about a chemical process for making progesterone from a bindweed root.  (It'd make a good band name, though.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Chemists just love degrations, for example Emde degradation - Gallagher-Hollander degradation - Barbier-Wieland degradation - Bergmann degradation - Curtius degradation, the list goes on. Also to people outside chemistry most of the 20,000 pages within chemistry will sound unfamiliar, that is not a reason to delete a page. (for comparison most of the math pages on wikipedia do not mean anything to me) V8rik (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This stub needs expansion, but it's a notable chemical reaction in its own right. I'll see if I can do some work on it before the deletion discussion comes to an end. I don't think it's a good idea to merge it into progesterone, even if that was its most notable application, as we would only have to demerge it again at a later date. Physchim62 (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - wow; have to say, I'm very impressed with how it's looking now. Good work Bfigura and Physchim62! -- Beloved Freak  12:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It still needs a few tweaks, and there are some references to be found, but I was surprised myself (when I got round to looking into it) at quite how notable this reaction is. You could probably count the number of chemical reactions discovered in the 20th century that have spawned entire new industries on the fingers of both hands, and this one is one of them. Physchim62 (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Can we put it up for DYK?--Stone (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I already did....but then pulled it after thinking that a DYK is probably inappropriate for a still-active AfD. -- MarcoTolo (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps ask Ten Pound Hammer if he'll consider withdrawing because if this stays open for 7 days, it will be too long from the time expansion started to nominate for DYK. -- Beloved Freak  18:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the number and nature of the comments here, the discussion could be closed as Keep under WP:SNOW. I'm sure that any DYK reviewer would see it that way as well, so the open discussion shouldn't be a bar to DYK submission. Physchim62 (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per all arguments above (nice work on the article, BTW). Sasata (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Looking at this article now, it's pretty obviously a "keeper". Many thanks to those who researched the topic so well. Walkerma (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2010 (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.