Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyclic nucleotide metabolism in the human erythrocyte

Cyclic nucleotide metabolism in the human erythrocyte was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete

Cyclic nucleotide metabolism in the human erythrocyte
Was listed for Speedy, but not a CSD. Bringing it here, instead. It is a copy/paste from, a government source. SWAdair | Talk 11:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is not encyclopaedic. --timc | Talk 11:55, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a report of a study, it means absolutely nothing to the layman, and people who do understand this sort of thing would and should not rely on Wikipedia for their information. Simply does not belong here. --Woggly 12:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete or Cleanup. Has some potential to be useful for something, if someone can interpret it and put it into English so its understandable by non-scientific persons.  --Randy 12:25, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Is it not just an abstract of a research paper? --timc | Talk 12:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's an abstract, it's about a possible mechanism for metabolizing of second messenger nucleotides cAMP cGMP by red blood cells.  It's twenty years old and probably very out of date--Alfred Gilman and Martin Rodbell won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1994 for their discovery of G-Proteins; in 1984 the mechanism was much less fully understood.  And the abstract is not only non-encyclopedic, it's a copyright violation. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk]] 13:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-encyclopedic, and it looks like a copyvio.  --Idont Havaname 23:42, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * comment. If it is from a government source, it is public domain --WhiteDragon 01:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * False assumption; it's an abstract of a paper which has had the abstract published online via a government organisation (I think PubMed is a branch of NIH). The copyright of the abstract remains with the publisher (or the author, depending on the journal, but it's usually safe to assume publisher) - in this case, whoever publishes Clin Physiol Biochem (Clinical Physiology and Biochemistry); some poking around on Web of Knowledge tells me they're a Munich-based organisation. Republishing the abstract is probably fair use, and almost certainly NIH has had permission granted for it anyway... but merely having had the government handle the information does not make it public domain. (Note also that the assumption breaks down if you're dealing with non-US governments...) Shimgray 20:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You can't assume that. A research paper and its abstract are the intellectual property of its authors, not the government. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk]] 06:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I wish I understood it well enough to know if the topic is encyclopedic. Abstain --Improv 07:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Put it this way: I don't think there are any established facts in the article. It's research and (unless we have a cytology expert in the house) unverifiable.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk]] 07:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, the conclusions are factual, I guess, insamuch as anything in a research paper is. However... it's been cited three (only three) times since 1984 that I can find in a citation search - once by one of the original authors, once by one of their co-authors on that paper, and a third time in 1995. That almost certainly classes as "not significant". Shimgray 20:35, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete:This should not be a debate about the merits of the material. It is an abstract of someone's research. The subject is real, but in its current state this article is not valid. This is about the article and how it is a straight copy/paste.Raazer 09:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.