Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protein-protein interaction prediction

Protein-protein interaction prediction

Original research doesn't belong on wikipedia, as per WP:OR Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR. --Rory096 03:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Update User:Tim@

This is not original research it is the overview of a field of study.

ok well please explain how it(the article) is original if

it has no "unpublished theories"
it has no "unpublished data"
it has no "unpublished concepts"
it has no "unpublished arguments"
it has no "unpublished ideas"
it has no "unpublished interpretations"
it has no "unpublished analysis'"
it has no "novel narrative or historical interpretation"

it is just a summary of what is published on the subject help me make it more apparent if you wish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim@ (talk • contribs)

delete this looks like terrific original research. unfortunately, wikipedia is not the place for it. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Tim@ Please give a specific argument for "original research" not just "I think it is". Quote something and I will find you a previous publication of your quote. 04:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim@ (talk • contribs) [reply]

Keep User:Tim@ the silence hints that you don't know what you are talking about

"the only way to verifiably demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the article, and to adhere to what those sources say."

The article does this, therefore this page does not violate WP:OR and should stay.

--Tim 04:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR and WP:NOT. Royboy crashfan 04:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. dbtfz ^talk 05:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see how this is original research. It cites a great deal of secondary sources and it is not making any unfounded claims or analysis. I do not know much about the subject other than it exists and this is a valid area of research. kotepho 05:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]