Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xanthosine monophosphate: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
{{subst:afd2|pg={{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|cat=T|text=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 Xan |
→Xanthosine monophosphate: response |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:({{Find sources|Xanthosine monophosphate}}) |
:({{Find sources|Xanthosine monophosphate}}) |
||
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. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 17:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC) |
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. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 17:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC) |
||
:See [[Wikipedia:Notability_(natural_sciences)#Chemistry]]: "Naturally occurring compounds are notable.". --[[User:Arcadian|Arcadian]] ([[User talk:Arcadian|talk]]) 23:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 23:47, 26 March 2012
- Xanthosine monophosphate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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 Wikipedia:Notability_(natural_sciences)#Chemistry: "Naturally occurring compounds are notable.". --Arcadian (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)