Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genome-wide complex trait analysis: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:58, 3 December 2018

Genome-wide complex trait analysis

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is page is an astounding work of original research and synthesis, assembling a bunch of primary sources and unsourced content into a review article. To make this a Wikipedia article it would have be completely done over. It reflects a ton of work and kudos for that, but it doesn't belong here per WP:OR and WP:NOT. Maybe Wikiversity.

-- Jytdog (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the primary author of these two articles. Jytdog is engaged in a hostile nomination due to my comments on his other genetics AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designer baby (2nd nomination). (We have never interacted before that I can recall, but he has a history of this sort of thing.) His comments here are no more correct than his claims on that AfD; if you look at the 2 articles, you will see scores of citations of reviews, systematic reviews, textbooks, and meta-analyses and that they are scrupulously cited, to a fault. --Gwern (contribs) 21:12 2 December 2018 (GMT)
- I am sorry you feel that it is hostile. These two pages are what they are; there are loads of primary sources per WP:MEDDEF, and these pages don't belong in WP per the nomination. You should publish these pages somewhere else as your own reviews of the field. We will see what others say. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Optimistic keep-but-crop-heavily This is indeed an impressive piece of work, but I agree that it is too heavy on the synthesis of primary material to sit well with the sourcing balance that is expected for a WP article. It's a shame because there's easily enough review and meta-analysis material in there to pass muster for a topic - e.g. ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6]. BUT the synthesis, well-referenced as it may be, is very heavy here.

Starting from the end, most of the primary source overkill is located in the "Traits" section - that, I believe, is really out of scope, what with pulling together almost 200 (!) primary research results. Personally I quite like having this available - looks like a great resource; but the arguments against it do have grounding in policy. - Sections "Benefits", "Disadvantages" and "Interpretation" seem well reasoned, but they are reasoned - they consist of conclusions drawn by the author from an assembly of primary material. Again, no good for an encyclopedia. Section "Implementations" I don't find troublesome because it just lists available software approaches, and boy do we ever have a tradition of that. "History" I think works because it's mostly a chronological assembly of material, which doesn't really fall under "synthesis". The lede reads well but I assume that much of it would have to be removed if one took away the original reasoning sections.

Overall, yes, most of the meat of this article is too synthetic for local consumption. I wish it could be cut down to what's reasonable, though, instead of deleted, because there's a lot of effort and expertise here that would be a shame to just chuck out. If the author could just get this entire thing published as a review article in a journal, then one could go to town with that source... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add: I've only just looked at Genetic correlation, and it's the same in green. Great work, wrong venue, cutting it down would be a lot of effort but may be worth it.

References

^ Eric Turkheimer ("Still Missing", Turkheimer 2011)
^ "Top 10 Replicated Findings From Behavioral Genetics", Plomin et al 2016
^ "Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies", Polderman et al 2015
^ "Still Chasing Ghosts: A New Genetic Methodology Will Not Find the 'Missing Heritability'", Charney 2013
^ "Knowns and unknowns for psychophysiological endophenotypes: Integration and response to commentaries", Iacono et al 2014
^ Krishna Kumar, Siddharth; Feldman, Marcus W.; Rehkopf, David H.; Tuljapurkar, Shripad (2016-01-05). "Limitations of GCTA as a solution to the missing heritability problem". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 113 (1): E61–70. doi:10.1073/pnas.1520109113. ISSN 1091-6490. PMC 4711841. PMID 26699465.

--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elmidae would you be open to draftification rather than deletion? That would be OK with me; this should not be in mainspace until it is cleaned/done over... Gwern what do you think? Jytdog (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Eric Turkheimer ("Still Missing", Turkheimer 2011)

[2] "Top 10 Replicated Findings From Behavioral Genetics", Plomin et al 2016

[3] "Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies", Polderman et al 2015

[4] "Still Chasing Ghosts: A New Genetic Methodology Will Not Find the 'Missing Heritability'", Charney 2013

[Iacono2014-5] "Knowns and unknowns for psychophysiological endophenotypes: Integration and response to commentaries", Iacono et al 2014

[6] Krishna Kumar, Siddharth; Feldman, Marcus W.; Rehkopf, David H.; Tuljapurkar, Shripad (2016-01-05). "Limitations of GCTA as a solution to the missing heritability problem". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 113 (1): E61–70. doi:10.1073/pnas.1520109113. ISSN 1091-6490. PMC 4711841. PMID 26699465.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 {{reflist-talk}}
 :--<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]</span> <small>([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])</small> 14:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
-::[[User:Elmidae]] would you be open to draftification rather than deletion?  That would be OK with me; this should not be in mainspace until it is cleaned/done over... [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 15:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
+::[[User:Elmidae]] would you be open to draftification rather than deletion?  That would be OK with me; this should not be in mainspace until it is cleaned/done over... Gwern what do you think? [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 15:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)