Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virokine (2nd nomination)

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. Agent 86 00:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virokine (2nd nomination)

Virokine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

This is a dictionary entry rather then an encylopedic entry. It has been tagged for editing by an expert on the subject almost a year ago, but has not been done so. Pinkkeith 17:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a basic stub, and certainly expandable. It may be a long time before someone competent to add information finds and sees it, but the subject strikes me as worthy, and the stub, though minimal, is informative. It might be merged somewhere, but suggesting where is a job for a specialist in itself. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. While consisting solely of a definition, this is more a stub in that it is "an article that is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of the subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information." The point is that it has the potential to be a full article once someone knowledgeable comes along to expand it. If we delete this we'll only reduce the chances of a good article on this subject being created. --Jackhorkheimer 21:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- Jackhorkheimer has made most of the points I wanted to, but I'll try to contribute my own argument anyway. The topic of the article is clearly a real thing which has its own origin, history, development and use. The simple fact that none of us happen to know, offhand, what any of those are doesn't mean that someone else won't come along who does, or who feels like finding more information to contribute from outside sources. The article is tagged with a stub tag, clearly indicating that the potential for a full article is there, but needs someone to turn it into a full article. This is all that needs to be done with this kind of article. Be patient; experts in viral pathology don't just fall out of the sky, y'know. -- Y|yukichigai 23:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I've expanded it somewhat. It's still stubby, but hey, I'm mol. bio; I just listen to this stuff at lab meeting. Choess 08:33, 14 January 2007 (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.