Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AntibodyLink.org

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. Michig (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AntibodyLink.org

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

Changed to CSD per A7, requesting close. LethalFlower^Talk/Reply 03:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Close Tried to fix header. And nom has changed the AfD tag to their desired CSD tag instead. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 06:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
posible keep I declined the speedy, as it indicates plausible importance. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but the references never mention anything about AntibodyLink.org. they only talk about "The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt)".

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Website appears to have stopped updating in 2010-2011, and doesn't look like it was really ever finished in the first place. Header links include odd non-sequiturs (the Asperger's quiz? umbilical hernias?). About page says "Or methods are deeply rooted in scrupulous research." Indeed. References are not about the article topic. No coverage or uptake in the scientific community. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reasons given by OR above seem sound. The references have some relevance in pointing to resources & the method for creating the database, but not to the article topic itself. Amkilpatrick (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2015 (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.