Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Segmented Filamentous Bacteria

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 Mandsford 20:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Segmented Filamentous Bacteria

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not the name of a thing but a generic descriptor. Like "Dirty brown rocks" (which we propose be called Sandstone). We wouldn't have an article called "Dirty brown rocks". Rmhermen (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets the WP:GNG. There are >50 scientific publications on segmented filamentous bacteria which means we should have an article on them. The nominator seems to be suggesting that we should delete salmon and elephant because they are general descriptors for a group of organisms, rather than being specific names. The article is not well written at the moment, but that should be adressed by clean up, rather than deletion. Smartse (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I get 58 hits on PubMed for "Segmented filamentous bacteria" including two review articles:
- Ivanov II, Littman DR (May 2010). "Segmented filamentous bacteria take the stage". Mucosal Immunol. 3 (3): 209–12. doi:10.1038/mi.2010.3. PMID 20147894.
- Klaasen HL, Koopman JP, Poelma FG, Beynen AC (June 1992). "Intestinal, segmented, filamentous bacteria". FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 8 (3–4): 165–80. PMID 1515159.
The reviews make clear that the application of formal taxonomic criteria to SFB has been limited by the lack of in vitro culture techniques, but that they represent a widespread class of commensal bacteria with important health effects. I think this is an entirely appropriate topic for Wikipedia coverage. — Scientizzle 19:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this article, I agree with all of the above comments. I am doing my best to add to this page. It is also very accurate to indicate that the title of this article is not ideal, but the taxonomy regarding SFB is not well established. I try to start the article out this way. I think if Wikipedia keeps this page, that with more additions from people out there, we can learn a lot about this bacterial species.--Vupadhyay85 (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is written as a proposed but not yet accepted species, not as a "class" or possibly class. Rmhermen (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an issue for editing, not for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.