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 Merge to Melanotan. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 02:28Z

Melanotan 1[edit]

Melanotan 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Unecessary and unhelpful disambiguation that complicates access to information about this hormone. The parent article Melanotan is quite stubbish itself already and there's no need to have breakout articles about the two versions of Melanotan particularly as there is already the Bremelanotide article which essentially covers virtually alll of the same material as Melanotan II. (→Netscott) 10:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Since there seems to be no doubt that the various substances are notable, I would see this rather as a question of how the material should be organized. This could be adressed via a discussion about possible merges and redirects without recurring to an AfD. --Tikiwont 13:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable, and verifiable. Quote from the melanotan article: "Note: this article describes both melanotan and melanotan II: although their names are similar, they have different chemical and biological properties." --Arcadian 13:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into parent article. (And are they really called "1" and "2"?) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and Merge While I understand that this information may be slight, we can add to the article and word it better. I would suggest this be merged as this drug has a high degree of notability both verifiable and pertinent to other related drugs, treatments and uses. Mystar 16:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: To address the "1" and "2" issue - click on the Medical Subject Headings and PubChem links I added to each article, and you will see that they are indeed called "1" and "2" (although they both have other names which would be preferable.) --Arcadian 16:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and merge - this reads more like a content dispute that should not have been brought to AFD. Arkyan 16:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Since it seems like this may be snowballed soon, I want to ask to anyone who chooses to close this, to be very careful when merging. Right now, the parent Melanotan article is very ambiguous in using the term "Melanotan" both to describe the general class of compounds, and as a synonym for "Melanotan I". Merging them back together into one article is going to make that harder to sort out, but if that's how the AfD will play out, please address the ambiguity when merging. --Arcadian 16:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. This seems mostly to be an issue of where the information should be located. As both this and the parent article are stubs, I recommend merging to Melanotan. -- Black Falcon 18:29, 27 February 2007 (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.