Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epigenome

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 keep. Keep, and consider how to deal with the contents in this and related articles. The possibilities for merging are too diverse to be properly decided here by a simple merge close; --those interested should pick one or another of the relvant talk pages and decide how to do it. As I understand the discussion, Quasihuman volunteered to coo-ordinate the discussion. No prejudice against redirecting one or more of the terms, if that's what's decided. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Epigenome[edit]

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

Not really an article. Anything salvageable should be copied to Human Epigenome Project so that this can redirected to Epigenetics. JonathonSimister (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable concept, has significant coverage in reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], and much more. The parent article is quite long, so this may be a useful split from that, for example, we have separate articles for genetics and genome. I'll try to work on the article when I have time. User:Quasihuman 08:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~KeepComment~~ clearly the tone is all wrong; the current text is little more than a Wiktionary-type definition, followed by some promotional stuff. However the concept is well substantiated (many sources, Notable) and I agree with User:Quasihuman that the split is reasonable, i.e. Epigenetics, Epigenome. The article will need effort but that is not reason for deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not trying to argue against the concept. Wouldn't it make sense to redirect to the much better article Epigenetics for now though? --JonathonSimister (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, give me time to develop it, most articles start in a bad state, for example look at the first edit] of Paul Nurse, a major figure in cell biology. I've made some changes to the article already, so it is on my to do list, and it won't be left in its current state for long. (Thanks to Chiswick Chap for signing for me, you would think that after a few years of editing here, I'd remember to sign my posts. :) Quasi human | Talk 09:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sounds reasonable. Is there a way I can withdraw by request for deletion? Or should I just leave this open in case others want it deleted and are more committed to that side? --JonathonSimister (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you, you can withdraw the nomination, and either close it yourself as speedy keep (instructions here), or you can wait for another editor to close it for you. If another editor !votes delete in the mean time, it can't be speedy kept, and we have to wait until the AfD is closed. It's normally best just to close it, if another editor thinks it should be deleted, they can start a new AfD. (I can't close it myself because I'm involved in the discussion.) Quasi human | Talk 09:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's also an article titled Epigenomics, though the first half of that appears to be about epigenetics. Not my area and I haven't read them in full, but do we really need three separate articles on epigenetics, epigenomics, and epigenome? Consider merging epigenome with epigenomics ? (Note I'm not arguing to delete epigenome, so this shouldn't affect any speedy keep decision.) Qwfp (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete I agree with Qwfp. This could easily fit into Epigenomics. I've rarely heard the term "Epigenome" used in the genetics field, and I don't think it needs an article separate from Epigenomics. But the Epigenomics article does look good and useful. --Qwerty0 (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, epigenomics is the study of epigenomes, I agree that a merge is a good idea, the question is what the destination article would be. I have no particular opinion on this, gscholar searches result in a similar number of hits, with epigenomics having the greater number by 500 (10500 vs 11000). I think deleting either one is a bad idea, both would clearly be plausible redirects. Quasi human | Talk 21:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm going to stand by original suggestion again. If Quasihuman or someone else does want to write a good epigenome article there's nothing to prevent them from overwriting the redirect once it's set, right? But until now, this stub is useless. A redirect would be better. --JonathonSimister (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first paragraph is a fair summary of the topic. Here is the same thing with more details: [4]. The rest is pretty poor and can be removed rahter than moved. Narayanese (talk) 20:29, 30 December 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.