Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T-cadherin


 * 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. Peacent 01:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

T-cadherin

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Long article about a protein. Created by the owner of a website on the same subject. Spam / original research / too technical? Please advise. -- RHaworth 20:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR. While I could see there being an article about it in the future, the article as-is is written like an academic paper, with little regard for references or proper formatting. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP is not a textbook. the_undertow talk  21:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep deletion is not a substitute for editing. All ptroteins are notable, like other chemical compounds for which there is abundant literature, and if it isn't formatted, the proper tag is "wikify" not delete. DGG (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How can we trust the reliability of this article when it has no sources? the_undertow talk  21:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm striking that because I was interpreting wikify as 'transwiki.' The burden now would be to source the article, if I am correct in what you are implying? the_undertow talk  21:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG. Add tags for sources, but not a reason to delete. -- DS1953 talk  21:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG's comments, it's notable but needs clean up. Elmo 23:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions.   -- Bduke 00:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Highly notable topic, but written at an inappropriate level. Should be tagged as non-encyclopedic writing and needing cleanup, not for deletion. Tim Vickers 01:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable protein with 50 hits on Medline; article just needs a clean up. Espresso Addict 02:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG's comments. The article needs a lot of work, but the topic is notable - this paper might be a good place to start. -- MarcoTolo 03:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Real protein.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs some serious editing, but I'd still go with keeping it because cadherins are important proteins. 81.103.99.156 00:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable protein; article needs improvement.Biophys 02:18, 24 July 2007 (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.