Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steroidergic


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Steroidergic

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The title and subject matter of this article is original research. The term steroidergic (and related terms corticosteroidic, glucocorticoidic, and mineralocorticoidic that are also mentioned in the article) are made up terms not widely used in the scientific literature (see table below; note that the few hits that were found were often written by non-native English language authors or were false positives). In contrast, the terms corticosteroid, glucocorticoid, and mineralocorticoid are widely used and already have articles devoted to each. Adding "ergic" or "ic" to these terms is in analogy to CNS agents such as dopaminergics. However Wikipedia should not invent new terminology through analogy. It should only use terminology found in reliable sources. For a related discussion concerning similarly named navboxes, see this link. Boghog (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. There is also the issue of the template on this article. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. The "Steroidergics" navbox in the uses the Navboxes templates to combine several other navboxes and this combined navbox is only included in this article. Several of the included navboxes such as Glucocorticoidics, Mineralocorticoidics, Progestogenics are also problematic, but exist independent of this article and hence are a separate issue. Boghog (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the navbox-template is an issue. It is a one-off composed navbox in this article, not a separate page in template-space. So it's like a table added to the article. Once this AfD is decided whichever way, no separate action is needed for the navbox, it follows the article. -DePiep (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The names of the component Glucocorticoidics, Mineralocorticoidics, Progestogenics navboxes are definitely an issue but outside the scope of this AfD. The consensus arrived at this discussion is that these templates should be renamed or merged with Glucocorticoids, Mineralocorticoids, and Progestogens respectively. I just haven't gotten around to it yet. Boghog (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as per careful analysis and reasoning by the nominator. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Boghog is completely right. These terms are not used in the literature and we're not in the business of propagating neologisms. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for now. While this might in the future become an article-worthy topic (as in, sourceable), we don't have enough sources to make an article yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:19, 11 July 2015 (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.