Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xanthosine monophosphate


 * 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. B music  ian  01:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Xanthosine monophosphate

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The only evidence of notability (Clinical significance) given is a retracted paper. Now it may be possible that it is still notable, especially if there's some kind of a controversy associated with Xanthosine monophosphate, and dome sources exist on the topic, but I can't tell if they qualify as significant coverage for drugs as I'm no medical expert. This nomination is mostly to ensure the article is properly vetted with regards to WP:N and WP:RS, but in this current version it's hard to justify this article's existence and I would personally support it's deletion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See Notability_(natural_sciences): "Naturally occurring compounds are notable.". --Arcadian (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Arcadian. This is a "naturally occurring compound", all such chemicals are notable, thus this is notable. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep there are scads of sources available, it is more a matter of selecting which are most worthy of incorporation into the article LeadSongDog come howl!  21:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Merge Despite the notability exception pointed out by Arcadian, does this really apply to all chemical variations and analogues? Minor metabolic intermediates? I think the mono-, di- and trisphosphate versions should be covered in the parent article xanthosine. Sasata (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If think the current policy is wrong and want to change it, you might want to check with WikiProject Chemistry first. --Arcadian (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Arcadian. Current policy says this topic is inherently notable. If you think the policy is wrong, this is not the place to argue that. - Running On Brains (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to change the policy, it's just that in this specific instance, I think the articles would be better merged. But I agree, I should propose a merge on the talkpage after this AfD is completed. Sasata (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As a side note, this is a failed policy proposal... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:40, 30 March 2012 (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.