Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epidermal-derived growth factor

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect which has now been done. Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Epidermal-derived growth factor

This was tagged for speedy deletion by an anon. I can't see what's wrong with it, but maybe the anon knows more about it than me. 53 Google hits No vote. Kappa 11:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep provided it's wikified. — JIP | Talk 11:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I can see what's wrong with it, and that is that it's totally incomprehensible to most people :) but since that is no grounds for deletion, keep and ask some biologist to clarify it. Radiant_* 14:59, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Halidecyphon 15:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and wikify. Scientific concepts are almost always encyclopedic. Dave the Red (talk) 18:02, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Epidermal growth factor. Dave the Red (talk) 19:28, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as biochemist I've come across this and I can assure you the concept is real. I'd be happy to wikify this later. Just post it to my Cleanup Taskforce Desk to make sure I don't forget :) Mgm|^(talk) 19:01, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Epidermal growth factor is the same thing and the correct name, merge and redirect there--nixie 00:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Epidermal growth factor. Concur with Peta. Megan1967 02:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or even replace Epidermal growth factor as the latter is poorly written. DDerby 01:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.