Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H3 receptor

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP, unanimously apart from nominator. -Splash 00:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] H3 receptor

This article was nominated for deletion by 82.44.195.97 (talk · contribs) on 2005-06-19, who performed all three steps of the nomination, but mis-spelled the article's name in the header and in the discussion page transclusion. The mis-spelled transclusion was then removed by Gwalla on that same day. Dmcdevit added the discussion to a per-day page on 2005-07-16. This is the article as at nomination.

This shouldn't even be an article. The H3 receptor is probably so minor that this one sentence that wikipedia has about it should go on the histamine page. Especially since, in general, the only information you need to know about receptors is how they're related to the thing they, um, recept, in this case, histamine. (quoted from ashleyisachild) 82.44.195.97 00:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The article is an incomplete stub, but looks very well done and encyclopedic. I see no benefit in redirecting it to a related article at this time. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 09:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)}
• Strong keep. --Arcadian 00:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- in any case I believe there are mentions in other histamine-related articles, which might lead to this being a curiosity visit. Haikupoet 03:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Encyclopedic topic. JamesBurns 02:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There is no reason to delete this under the reasons to delete page. Even if it counted under "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" (which it doesn't, millions of dollars are being spent throughout the world right now on developing H3 receptor specific drugs into clinically marketable compounds), it would still only be a merge. Bilz0r 06:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, nothing to merge with. JFW | T@lk 07:57, 20 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.