Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inhibitory peptide

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 speedy delete, for the several reasons given below — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Anome (talk • contribs) 00:13, September 12, 2011

Inhibitory peptide

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

At first glance this seems like an exception for this editor's WP:SYNTH farm, but a look at the sourcing an material shows significant copy-and-paste from other articles, as well as copy-vios, and other issues. This topic exists and should be addressed in the wiki, but unless the WP:ARS can get to it and reshap it, it is better to have no info than bad info. Cerejota (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to enzyme inhibitor for the moment. The current content needs to be scrapped, but it's something we need an article for eventually. --S Larctia (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can second that.--Cerejota (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as noted above. Insufficient content for using an old version.Novangelis (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve for the following reasons. (1) Using this was not a copyright violation (it tells "Abstract free"); Comment (2) The subject does not belong to "enzyme inhibitors" (suggested redirect) because transmembrane channel is obviously not an enzyme; (3) this should be simply renamed to "peptide inhibitors", an important and legitimate subject. Biophys (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete because of copyvio. Copying from the source noted above is indeed a copyright violation; "free" in this context does not mean "public domain" or "GNU licensed" -- it simply means you can read that copyrighted material without paying. Note the phrase "Copyright © 2011 by American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology." -- 202.124.72.60 (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation. It may well be that someone can produce a "clean" version of this article, but it legally cannot be hosted by Wikipedia while we wait for some editor to do that. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2011 (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.