Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cellular life Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cellular_life

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 on the issue of delete/no-delete. No consensus on the issue of redirecting. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cellular life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Can be regarded as a needless category or a trivial content fork --donnyton (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep considering that there is acellular/non-cellular life, and many people classify viruses as alive, that does not appear correct. Further, content fork of what? The development of cellular life from pre-cellular life is an active region of research for the origins of life, and the research into non-cellular life is alive in astrobiology. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment why is this being translcuded from two different AfD dates? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 5 ?? 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is rated as high importance by WP:MCB, and mid importance by WP:Microbiology, clearly showing it is not needless. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep—the nomination statement isn't very clear, and given that I'm not an expert, I've no idea what this is supposedly a content-fork from. However, the page appears to be adequately referenced and reasonably written, so deletion would not seem to be justified. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 11:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• merge and redirect to cell (biology). - UtherSRG (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments. Wikipedia seems to be of two minds with respect to the idea of Non-cellular life. The Life article implies that having "cellular form" is a feature common to all living organisms then it links to both Non-cellular life and Cellular life. In my experience, most biologists find it convenient to include cellular structure as part of the definition of living organisms, as is done in this textbook. There are interesting questions about the boundary between life and non-life, particularly with respect to viruses. The virus article says, "Opinions differ on whether viruses are a form of life". Maybe we should use Non-cellular life as a page for citation of those publications favoring the existence of "non-cellular life" and (as suggested by UtherSRG) make the Cellular life page a redirect to Cell (biology), a page that takes the position of cells being "the smallest unit of life that is classified as a living thing". --JWSchmidt (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to cell (biology), per UtherSRG, the two pages are redundant. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:01, 7 June 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.