Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protein ontology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 21:36 (UTC)

[edit] Protein ontology

Self-promotion; notability debatable. Presumably the topic deserves an article, but it might be better to start afresh. -- Avocado 00:29, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

  • Delete, would be speedyable as a platform for a link. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:40, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Uhh.... Ok, well, get rid of it, and get an actual encyclopedic article for it. So, clean-up really... I think. Satanicbowlerhat 01:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It the opic is real article will be created. Pavel Vozenilek 01:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if rewritten. The topic is encyclopedic but the current article is just advertising. JamesBurns 04:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The project is ambitious, far from completion and I'm not entirely sure it's encyclopaedic under this title PdDemeter 05:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Me thinks this falls under the ol' crystal ball category. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:06, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Oh joy, turning Wikipedia into an advertisement. Though this may be keepable if he wrote... What protein ontology even is! otherwise Delete like the wind Redwolf24 06:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as written. -- BD2412 talk 12:53, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
  • Keep see my edits, below the rule in the page in question. If we decide it's acceptable, just blank the original bits above the rule. -Harmil 01:24, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep Harmil's version. No need to delete if we've got something sensible to put there -- it is a potentially valid topic for an encyclopedia article. -- Avocado 04:06, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. Josh Parris ✉ 29 June 2005 06:16 (UTC)
  • Keep as re-written and expand, obviously. Bubamara 29 June 2005 21:32 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.