Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amino acid-based formula


 * 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. After HzH's rewrite of 28 December 2020‎.  Sandstein  07:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Amino acid-based formula

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Thinly-veiled advertisement page with the only source being a company selling a version of the product the article discusses. The topic might be notable but there's nothing useful here. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 09:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 09:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 09:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Promotion. When I just saw the title, I thought it might be something along the lines of a chemical formula, but for amino-acid biochemistry. Now that's something that could be notable, but this isn't that. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Advertisement posing as an article. Given the subject matter, sourcing would have to be up to the WP:MEDRS standard, and it very much isn't. Even if the topic could be better documented, WP:TNT would apply. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Commment There appear to be many academic articles on the subject - e.g., it would make this a valid topic for an article. Article needs improving with better sourcing, but it does not appear to be advert to me - just need to delete one sentence if that is a concern, and there isn't much in the article to TNT. Leaning keep but the article do need editors who can make improvement to it. Hzh (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Made changes to article to remove anything that may be problematic. No point in deleting a notable subject that may be useful for those looking for information on the subject, and since it is only a small article, it does not require a large rewrite. It can be further expanded since there is quite a bit of information out there, maybe someone else can do it. Changed to keep. Hzh (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I no longer care about deleting this article, since sources were added and promotional material removed, though I don't think it'd be appropriate for me to withdraw it at this time. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 11:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article in its original state was unacceptable, but Hzh rewrote it in a way that addresses the article's former deficiencies.  It is a sufficiently notable topic and it is currently compliant with WP:RSMED.  Reba16 (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2021 (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.