Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Exposure to Thimerosal from Vaccines Labeled for Use in Dogs


 * 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. Consensus is clear. (WP:SNOW) -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Human Exposure to Thimerosal from Vaccines Labeled for Use in Dogs

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unencyclopedic, non-notable subject, contains little if anything worth merging. Literature geek |  T@1k?  16:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This is not an encyclopedia entry; it is a research paper. Wikipedia is WP:NOT for original research/synthesis like this. --MelanieN (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Really way too detailed info on a minor subject. Veterinarians should be aware of this, but WP is not the right vehicle to get the info to them. BigJim707 (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Original research. WP:OR. SL93 (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete OR/Synth, as above. An article designed to make a single point. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT PAPERS and WP:OR.  HurricaneFan 25  18:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong delete  - pure WP:OR. ukexpat (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it snowing yet? --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Obvious OR, non-encyclopedic subject. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a shame that such a nicely-written and well-(original-)researched article must be deleted, but it's not an appropriate topic for a general encyclopedia. Zad68 (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2011 (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.