Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phosphate transistasis Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phosphate_transistasis

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. Copyvio issues, unattributed copy-paste from other articles and WP:SNOW, it's clear where this is headed. —SpacemanSpiff 18:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phosphate transistasis

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

This term has apparently been made up for our benefit, since there are no Google hits, Google books hits, or Google scholar hits (apart from Wikipedia mirrors). Also, the entire article seems to be an incoherent assembly of direct quotes (that are, rather questionably, not indicated as quotes) from the sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OR. Pburka (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most articles by this author are problematic; at first glance this is an exception. But, on closer examination, it's a WP:SYNTH of out-of-context quotes (not in quote marks) on a range of disconnected topics, and the title is a WP:NEO occurring nowhere in the literature. -- 202.124.72.211 (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the continued saga of this user's WP:SYNTH farm--Cerejota (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ramblings. Neutrality^talk 20:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article also contains copyvio: verbatim quotes from cited works, not indicated by quote marks. -- 202.124.74.191 (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In light of this ANI thread, it seems like this deletion nomination should be speediable for copyvio reasons. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. If it also contains copyvio then that's the icing on the cake. bobrayner (talk) 16:19, 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.