Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S-2

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 redirect to S2. ansh 666 02:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

S-2

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

I am unable to locate any references to establish that this is a notable subject, or even that it exists. - MrX 03:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See linking page Cucurbitacin E#Cytotoxicity. Or Google, good first hit. And apparently you did not check the history either. I must say I am annoyed, you cannot have looked very much. Tomdo08 (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source (see WP:CIRCULAR). If you can find some actual sources and add them to the article, it may be kept. (I don't know what " Or Google, good first hit." means).- MrX 03:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The section I linked lists S-2, the whole section text is covered by a source. When searching in Google with the definition, the first result links to Cellosaurus, a database of cell lines. Tomdo08 (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I restored S-2 as redirect (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S-2&oldid=777974191), cell line page should be S-2 (cell line). This discussion should be closed. A deletion discussion was wrong in any case. Tomdo08 (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My restore apparently got reverted by User:MrX. Tomdo08 (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The state of affairs now is completely silly:

The deletion discussion does not make any sense.
The tagging as hoax does not make any sense.
The state of the page should be the one from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S-2&oldid=777974191

Tomdo08 (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:AFD so that you understand this process, and let other editors comment on the merits of the deletion. We work by WP:CONSENSUS.- MrX 04:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to redirect, article is an unsourced, one-sentence WP:DICDEF. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Restor legitimate redirect to S2 as it has been there for 12 years undisturbed. And this is unnecessary AfD as the right thing to do is to revert the redirect not start unnecessary process. The first mistake is by Tomdo08 for converting useful redirect to unsourced and likely non notable stub. But they corrected their mistake by restoring the original redirect. What follows of insisting AfD must be done is dead unnecessary. AfD should not be as a dispute resolution venue, apart from the fact the original action has been undone in good faith since.–Ammarpad (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is legitimate concern that there is no such thing as an s-2 ovarian cancer cell line. If there is, someone could simply post a link. According to the Cellosaurus website referenced by Tomdo08 above, S-2 (capital 'S') is a cell line found in small cell lung carcinoma. I have no objection to redirecting it to the correct article/section, or back to S2, although I think the latter is less optimal. By the way, once an AfD is started, you can't just remove the template from the article and expect it to go away.- MrX 16:57, 9 January 2018 (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.