Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schizosaccharomyces cerevisiae


 * 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   delete. Editors may want to consider a redirect to aid navigation - this AfD result does not preclude the creation of such a redirect Fritzpoll (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Schizosaccharomyces cerevisiae

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This species does not exist. Saccharomyces cerevisiae, a commonly studied budding yeast species of high commercial importance, is not in the same genus as Schizosaccharomyces pombe, the fission yeast, despite the similarity in genus names. Schizosaccharomyces already has a genus page with most of the information listed in this article, and both Schizosaccaromyces pombe and Saccharomyces cerevisiae already have species pages. Dcteas17 (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —Dcteas17 (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment What you are saying seems reasonable but then so does the original article. It sounds like this is an unintended hoax.  You may need to round up some experts in yeast species to weigh in on this. Drawn Some (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it's likely just a mixup because the names are so similar. I consider myself somewhat an expert in the topic given that I work with both species (Schizosaccharomyces pombe and Saccharomyces cerevisiae) in the lab.  I'd invite any and all comments by anyone knowledgable, obviously. Dcteas17 (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, I wasn't implying that you aren't an expert, I meant that if it is to have a fair trial it needs a qualified jury and was excusing myself. The important thing was that you might have to actively seek them. Drawn Some (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, no offense was taken - I didn't think that's wha tyou meant. And you were right. Dcteas17 (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's a slip that has only once appeared in a PubMed abstract, but more than 100 times in scientific articles as seen in a Google Scholar search. But typos don't create a species; it doesn't exist. Fences and windows (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC) p.s. I'm a biologist. Fences and windows (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete probably just a mix-up. Articles and books tend to abbrebriviate their names to S. cerevisiae and S. pombe (and they get mentioned together a lot) and someone might have thought that the "S" is the same genus.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have placed any info of value into the Saccharomyces cerevisiae page, so that no data will be lost if the page proposed for deletion is removed. I understand the literature trail and the historic mix up of the taxonomy. Plumpurple (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Easy enough mistake to make, but the species doesn't exist. Merge anything useful to Saccharomyces cerevisiae (which someone may have already done) then delete. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The phrase "Schizosaccharomyces cerevisiae" scores 30 hits on Google Books and 119 on Google Scholar. I'm no expert but can these really all be mistakes?  Since Professor Plum understands the historic mixup, can he supply a reference?  Groomtech (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the fact that literally tens of thousands (possibly over one hundred thousand) of peer-reviewed articles have been written on these two species, and the close similarity of the genus names, it seems very likely that they are mistakes. Consider that combined, searches for "Schizosaccharomyces pombe" and "Saccharomyces cerevisiae" turn up over half a million hits on Google Scholar.  And it looks like most of the hits on Google Scholar for "Schizosaccharomyces cerevisiae" are in references to other work - searching for those references directly reveals that the original paper contained the correct name "Schizosaccharomyces pombe" or "Saccharomyces cerevisiae", and the author of the paper citing the original simply mistranscribed the name. Dcteas17 (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Groomtech (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  —WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Given that this is a repeated mistake, would it make sense to have a disambig page pointing out that it is a mistake and pointing to the Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Schizosaccharomyces pages? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2009 (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.