Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GSK-789,472


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

GSK-789,472

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An article created in 2011 about a potential psychiatric drug which was the subject of a then-recent academic paper. It does not appear to have undergone any published clinical trials since then, and there appears to be little to no coverage of it in any other sources; also, there are no citations of that paper which post-date 2012. My view is that it is simply not notable. Rhythdybiau (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. AdoTang (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. The page supplies no more than minimal information, and, perhaps more important, it is virtually forgotten in its field, cited just 5 times in 11 years, most recently in 2015. Not exactly a hot topic. Athel cb (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a stub and we have thousands of chemical and medical stubs with some that appear to serve little purpose as they are unlikely to be expanded further. However, I like to think of them as scaffolding; try clicking on "What links here" on the article page to see what I mean. CV9933 (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The only reason for the extensive "What links here" list is the inclusion of this article in a template. Having lots of non-notable stubs strikes me as an argument for cleaning more of them up, not for keeping this one. PianoDan (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 *  Comment I would be interested to know what the thinks, but then I noticed that the nominator added a deletion notification to their talk page archive so that would explain the lack of response from the article creator. For better consensus I would suggest that this is relisted for WikiProject Chemistry attention. CV9933 (talk) 10:21, 7 April 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.