Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hookworm vaccine/16187734

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 Transwiki and then delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hookworm vaccine/16187734

Hookworm vaccine/16187734 (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)

Poorly formatted, full of unreferenced claims and opinions (e.g. "... the production of the vaccine at low cost and high yield...", "Finally, it is somewhat ironic to note that..."). I'd suggest starting a fresh article from scratch. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 12:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment You do realize that this is a subpage of the hookworm vaccine article and is simply word for word one of the open source references of that article? This line here sort of explains it "When placed here this was an exact copy of "Devaney E (2005) The End of the Line for Hookworm?" If you look at the talk page Talk:Hookworm_vaccine/16187734 you will see further explanation on why it exists.
• Currently the WMF has signed contracts with cellphone companies to give free Wikipedia access to 750 million people. This means that all these people can access Wikipedia but cannot access the sources our content is based on. We could host the compatible sources right on Wikipedia and change this. Another benefit is that it could potentially increase the number of people who can edit Wikipedia by 750 million as they would than have sources. By the way the Cochrane collaboration is thinking of licensing some of their content under an open license so that this could occur.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I do notice the article is copied from a CC-BY-SA source, but I don't think it's appropriate to put it here on Wikipedia (or at least on the mainspace, since it's in no shape to become an article), and WikiSource may be a better choice. To get advantage of the free bandwidth, Novusuna's solution may do. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 23:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Move to talk namespace This is an interesting idea, and I think we should give it a shot, but per WP:Subpages we shouldn't have subpages in the mainspace. It should be fine in the talk namespace, though. Novusuna ^talk 15:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  Yes talk page space is fine Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Moved Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wait, what? Why not just move it into User:Jmh649's userspace rather than have a fakearticle on a talk page where the subject page just redirects there? That seems like it would be much simpler. Jinkinson talk to me 17:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's not a WP:FAKEARTICLE - moving it to his userspace would make it one. In any case, it's basically the content of a source, not an attempt at writing an article. ansh666 05:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• It is an actual article published in a medical journal under a license compatible with Wikipedia. The goal is to increase peoples access to sources on which our articles are based and hopefully increase the number of people editing Wikipedia. Ideally the copy will eventually go on Wikidata with a copy hosted locally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't Wikisource be the right project for that? --j⚛e decker^talk 16:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikisource. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• Transwiki per above - seems like a reasonable solution. ansh666 10:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

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.

Sorry been traveling. Moving off of Wikipedia defeats the whole purpose. Wikisource is not freely accessible via Wikipedia zero. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)