Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two phenylalanines in an acidic track


 * 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 redirect to FFAT motif. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Two phenylalanines in an acidic track

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Not a notable typo. Appears to violate WP:NOTDIC. Everymorning (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Not a notable typo.-- Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)i've made a huge mess 00:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not a notable typo. Possibly worthy of a redirect, although I would lean towards "no" on that as well. Westroopnerd (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not a notable typo. We aren't a dictionary. The Undead Never Die (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and above editors. Better on Wiktionary.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to FFAT motif and make the content a footnote there. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 18:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The "article" appears to be just a proposal for a redirect, which is more suitable for a talk page. Whether to honor that request would be another business than this AfD. (Although IMO "track" and "tract" sound similar enough to give it)  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 06:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect. It's an attempt to make a redirect, obviously. So do that. No one is ever going to search this way, but it's harmless. What would a 'notable' typo be, anyway? Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to FFAT motif and make the content a footnote there. My extensive post to the talk page of article in question (made on 10:19, 17 August 2015) explains how this error has crept into the world literature and is possibly being amplified. However, after considering the comments above, I see that it is not the role of Wikipedia to act as corrective agent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timlev37 (talk • contribs)
 * Redirect to FFAT motif Completely reasonable to have the long form of an acronym redirect to it. I believe this would be considered a plausible typo under WP:REDIRECT. Mkdw talk 16:45, 23 August 2015 (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.