Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TB10Cs1H3 snoRNA


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

TB10Cs1H3 snoRNA

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Does not meet WP:NBIOL and WP:GNG. No source besides one paper. Hongsy (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Already PROD"d so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, the point of an encyclopaedia is to summarise what multiple sources have said about something, providing the reader with an overview. If there's only one source, the reader might as well read it. As a general guideline, I'd say that if a biomolecule has never appeared in a review article (rather than a primary research article) it's unlikely to be appropriate for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Elemimele (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks @Elemimele - i have another nom at Articles for deletion/TB8Cs3H1 snoRNA - please review. Hongsy (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete, unless secondary sources can be found. Owen&times; &#9742;  14:37, 16 November 2023 (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.