Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proteopedia


 * 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Proteopedia

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable, no wide 3rd party reporting demonstrated. Deleted. Merrill Stubing (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It has been the topic of an article in a peer-reviewed journal about the field of science, and a quick Google search turns up a profile and award by Scientist magazine. ERIC.gov, meanwhile, has a separate article/description, while Google Scholar throws up discussion of the website in multiple scientific journals. The Rhymesmith (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Then fix the article and cite it. Non notable. Delete. Merrill Stubing (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is ridiculous. I have nothing to do with the article, and it's not my job to add citations. Moreover, your blanket assertion that the article is 'non notable' despite my supplying evidence to the contrary is simply obdurate deletionism which contributes nothing to the Wiki. The subject is notable, and reliable sources exist. Go read WP:Chance before doing this kind of thing again. The Rhymesmith (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now cited. The citations make clear that the article is notable. Boghog (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as it seems notable. Nergaal (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep mentioned in several peer-reviewed journals. Boghog (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2010 (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.