Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anaplerosis
- 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. Considering these were created by a spammer, their accuracy is in question. They may be redirected where appropriate, and I would be happy to restore to a temporary location any of them that would be useful for merging information or for transferring to wiktionary if you think you have the appropriate expertise to verify them. —Centrx→talk • 05:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anaplerosis[edit]
Also nominated are:
Delete all — editors AmberLeigh (talk · contribs), Grooooopster (talk · contribs), Rufus the man (talk · contribs), 24.167.218.150 (talk · contribs), 141.106.188.156 (talk · contribs) and 141.106.188.141 (talk · contribs) have been systematically adding links to the external site in these articles. Besides adding the links to numerous existing articles, these articles were also created. The edits appear to be a conflict of interest and original research. The author of the If I Were ... novel is also listed as the website contact. JonHarder 01:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move the first three articles to Wiktionary. Not enough information, and only consist of definitions. Cheers -- Imoeng 02:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all but the last one. My bias would be to create a single article for the subjects of anaplerosis and cataplerosis, merging in anaplerotic reactions, as these are real terms but not used terribly often. Glyceroneogenesis is a definite keep; readily releasable pool could be merged to synaptic vesicle. Oh, and obviously remove the linkspam. Opabinia regalis 04:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the last one . Move the other four to Wikitionary. --NRS | T/M\B 12:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Merge any verifiable content, after providing journal or book references, to Synapse. Delete the fourth article. Edison 15:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the first three. Neutral regarding the last one. Please do not nominate unrelated articles in the same nomination. --Richard 18:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - they are all related: all by the same author and all for the purpose of linkspamming. JonHarder 19:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I've deleted the last one. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or transwiki all. And now I must go see a therapist, because the nightmares I had of the eight-foot-long color-coded diagram of the Krebs cycle that I had to draw in college have returned, and they threaten my sense of self. ;-) KrakatoaKatie 01:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.