Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T-loop deletion factor

T-loop deletion factor

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neither notable or verifiable. A term used in a single publication in the "Journal of anti-aging" about the journal a "journal" that strains the definition of this word. Zero hits in PubMed, one hit (this "paper") in Google Scholar. The other references in the article do not use this term and unsurprisingly do not relate to this "research". Tim Vickers (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete merge into aging or other related article. Shyamal (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what exactly? What part of this article do you think is verifiable and notable? Tim

Vickers (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I did not see your note on it not being verifiable. I saw the references cited on the article and I imagined it had something to do with the molecular biology of ageing. (surprised that we have no such article, and Evolution of ageing does not seem to have well vetted content)Shyamal (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't stated that it failed WP:V (I added that after your comment), just discussed the sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange that the journal and the author seem to have the same e-mail address, as if the author is also the publisher. The journal is too new to find indicators of trustworthiness like listing in selective services like medline or journal citation reports. Narayanese (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO if nothing else. And the nominator's else is accurate, if understated. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As as a non-notable, un-verifiable neologism. (The author of the paper is not the Vladimir Stoyanov on whom we currently have an article, but the revision history of that page might be of interest to the idle curious). Qwfp (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC) (…as might that of telomere and ageing) --Qwfp (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content issues aside (and there are many), the entry is solely based on an article which appeared in a journal of very dubious provenance. All relevant links (e.g., to the Editorial Board) seem to be broken, and it gives an email contact that smacks of a hoax account (zzz_www_ooo@yahoo.co.uk). Also, this purported source was the only article in it. Malljaja (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that the the journal that provides the only source is reliable, and signs pointing toward the opposite. Narayanese (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]