Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tumor necrosis factor
- 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 redirect to Tumor necrosis factors. The Bushranger One ping only 00:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tumor necrosis factor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page is redundant to Tumor necrosis factors, and should not exist as a disambiguation page, since all notable uses are WP:DABCONCEPT for the page at the plural title. The album is apparently non-notable, and even if it was notable, the primary meaning would be the existing article at the plural title. bd2412 T 19:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Tumor necrosis factors, simple enough. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but I want it clearly decided that no disambiguation page is needed, and that the content of this page should not be moved or replicated elsewhere in the project. bd2412 T 20:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Tumor necrosis factors which details TNF info anyways. The album can be linked with a hatnote when it is created--Lenticel (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep This is not a deletion discussion. The redirect should be to tumor necrosis factor-alpha, if anywhere, as this is what's usually meant by the term. Warden (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that a redirect will result from the discussion doesn't diminish the fact that an existing disambiguation page should be deleted. Your !vote is, after all, for the removal of the current content of the page, is it not? Unless you are advocating keeping the disambiguation page as is "speedy keep" is an incorrect statement of your intentions, and could be read as "keep the disambig". bd2412 T 14:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The title of the article should be retained per WP:SINGULAR and WP:COMMONNAME. It's all a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. This discussion is a waste of time as no-one else has edited the article for months. Warden (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think the solution is that clear cut, I certainly won't object if you implement it. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The title of the article should be retained per WP:SINGULAR and WP:COMMONNAME. It's all a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. This discussion is a waste of time as no-one else has edited the article for months. Warden (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that a redirect will result from the discussion doesn't diminish the fact that an existing disambiguation page should be deleted. Your !vote is, after all, for the removal of the current content of the page, is it not? Unless you are advocating keeping the disambiguation page as is "speedy keep" is an incorrect statement of your intentions, and could be read as "keep the disambig". bd2412 T 14:50, 25 July 2012 (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.