Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TSQ

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 of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 19:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TSQ

comment listed for deletion (by prod) by another user because it was non-encyclopedic and not found in google. I searched the biomedical literature and found 36 articles using TSQ to identify particular areas of brain anatomy, so it is a real thing. However I'm not sure WP is the place to list highly specialized research methodology when there are manuals, articles and specific databases for this purpose. Thatcher131 15:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — I placed the original prod tag. I was pretty sure it wasn't a hoax, as it didn't read like one. However, it was poorly written before I got to it, and as Thatcher said, it is pretty specialized. My vote stands as delete. Kareeser|^Talk! 17:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup a bit. There is precedence for keeping this type of article - there is a category for them: Category:Fluorescent dyes. Right now it is a stub worth keeping. Edgar181 19:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kareeser. Stifle 01:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Obscure knowledge doesn't automatically fail notability guidelines Ruby 02:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and please add the sources you have to the article. Renata 04:32, 12 February 2006 (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.