Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S9 fraction


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

S9 fraction

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Before even getting to the issue of sourcing, let me just ask everyone to ask themselves if they actually believe that the "Supernatant fraction obtained from an organ (usually liver) homogenate by centrifuging at 9000 g for 20 minutes in a suitable medium; this fraction contains cytosol and microsomes." sounds like something a general audience needs to be concerned about. A WP:PROD was declined without comment other than "removing tag." A "further reading" link to an book was added but clearly that was not actually used to construct the article as the actual article text was not changed when it was added. This article is a definition of an obscure term used in toxicology that is of no use to the average Wikipedia user. Or if you prefer: violates WP:NOTDIC and does not meet WP:N. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It was easy to find another couple of references describing the process and its results, hence going beyond definition and satisfying notability.  I have seen obscurer things even if the nominator hasn't.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I've certainly seen more obscure articles than this, but the point is, what is it that makes this obscure topic somehow a notable one? Still not seeing that in the article. Adding references from toxicology texts helps to verify[ that this definition is accurate, but there is still no explanation or evidence that the S9 fraction is notable unto itself. There is not even an explanation of what the purpose is. I don't happen to have those toxicology texts handy and they do not appear to be online, so I don't know what useful information they contain that might indicate why a general audience would be looking this up. As it currently stands this looks very much like something that only toxicologists need to be aware of. We have specialized terminology at my job too, most of it is not notable unto itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Notable because there are 336 references in Google Books and 4470 in Google Scholar -- "significant coverage in reliable sources" ? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, you've got some statistics saying that this is mentioned numerous times. Now if you could actually identify the significant mentions that go into detail and are not just more definitions or brief mentions and use them to make the article clear as to why anyone but a toxicologist is ever going to even be aware of the existence of the S9 fraction, we'd really be getting somewhere. WP:GHITS is generally not considered a valid argument if there is no detail as to the actual substance of those hits. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A whole paper here, for starters. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, if you could go ahead and read that, distill the relevant facts down into plain English that explains why this is important, and add that to the article that would be swell. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge for now into Ames test. Both are pretty short, and until they get developed some more, they can sit together. Nergaal (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – The S9 fraction is notable since it is widely used in mutagenicity and metabolism studies. Since the later use has now been added to the article, it would no longer be appropriate to merge this article into the Ames test. Boghog (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, significantly covered by reliable sources. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:34, 25 October 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.