Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zebra Lines

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. If you have an issue with the closing of this discussion, please take it to Deletion review. I am happy to userfy an article, just ask. Thanks for assuming good faith. SarahStierch (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zebra Lines

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

"Zebra Lines" are described by only one article, cited only 28 times at Google Scholar; the term does not appear to have gained general use or recognition. MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

possibly convert to disambig, link to relevant main articles I'm seeing two different subjects in GScholar: the original, and something having to do with spectroscopy. It looks in both cases that it likely makes more sense to have a short section in each main rather than a set of rather stubby Z line articles. Mangoe (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. However, I find many different meanings for "Zebra lines" at Google Scholar. The only standard usage seems to be in describing the spectrograph of solar flares, but it is not mentioned in our current article on solar flares. The other uses, including this one, seem to be merely descriptive terms used in passing by one author. The meaning put forth in the current article, describing radiographic findings in children on pamidronate therapy, was defined by only a single, rarely-cited paper. Another single-use citation refers to a microscopic appearance in myoepithelioma of the salivary glands. Still another is used in mathematics to solve 3D problems. Outside of scholarly uses, it is used to describe a type of paint marking on roadways. IMO none of these usages are significant enough to be recognized by Wikipedia, and no redirect or dab is needed for the term. --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say something along the lines of Zebra stripes, currently a redirect, would be a good disambig page, linking to Zebra striping, Zebra patterning, and Zebra#Stripes, and maybe mentioning the other concepts of "Zebra lines". If I or someone else gets around to doing that, redirect this page there. Ansh6 6 6 07:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I have created a DAB page at Zebra stripe and redirected the plural—and a bunch of other things that had redirected to Zebra striping—there. Cnilep (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This topic seems insufficiently notable. According to Web of Science the original paper has been cited seven times (though MelanieN's Google Scholar search suggests that may be low; some relevant journals may not be in Web of Science). WoS finds 33 mentions of zebra lines, but most of these are false positives, for example talking about zebra stripes. I'd say delete this article, but I have no objection to using the name for a DAB page or redirect. Cnilep (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks I have provided additional citations as required. TinaHW —Preceding undated comment added 00:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 13:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article doesn't seem to be important since no other article mentions "Zebra Lines". From my viewpoint, I couldn't understand what the article is actually about, so a rewrite will be necessary if the page doesn't get deleted. --MrRatermat2 (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can understand what it's about (after reading Harris lines) and think that if it is kept a bit of clarification wouldn't go amiss. I'm happy with the two mentions I've seen (discarding the originator of the term and radiopedia) as they seem to show it as a term understood in the profession. It's different enough from 'zebra stripes' not to warrant DAB - who talks about 'lines' on a zebra (or on a zebra crossing even...). A mention could be added to Harris lines, or this could be merged there and a redir left. They are related phenomena. The whole subject is rather specialised and not likely to attract vast piles of references. It's not often I disagree with Melanie, but for once I do... Peridon (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Insert in another article that this one links to, such as this one. It'd make much more sense there, as it seems notable as a sub-set but not as a standalone. GRUcrule (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significance or notability. This one-line article can probably go in another article (the Harris lines one). --CyberXRef^talk 16:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significance or notability. We don't need an article for every occurrence of a pattern resembling zebra stripes! If his is any significant phenomena, it should be added to the parent article (Metaphysis). -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:28, 22 December 2013 (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.