Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protein-protein interaction prediction

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tim@ (talk | contribs) at 15:28, 11 March 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 as nominator. Jude <(talk,contribs,email) 03:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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  • it has no "unpublished theories"
  • it has no "unpublished data"
  • it has no "unpublished concepts"
  • it has no "unpublished arguments"
  • it has no "unpublished ideas"
  • it has no "unpublished interpretations"
  • it has no "unpublished analysis'"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)


  • 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.

"Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. " perhaps all of you should find some grounds and warrants to support your clams before you make them. upon inspection of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Original_research you will find that the page in question is not Original research. And it does belong in Wikipedia Until someone says something intelligent or any argument at all in opposition I will keep the page --Tim 04:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you are upset or offended but if you are unwilling to recognize the opinions of others and work with them you will find a hard time being accepted here. And, frankly, if the consensus goes against you, the article will be deleted whether you like it or not. Your best bet is to participate with an open mind and at least a little respect for more experienced editors.Thatcher131 05:26, 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]
  • Massively rewrite and cleanup. Tim@, to be honest this looks like a college project or a first attempt at writing a review article for a journal. It's not original research but it is highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not Bioinformatics. Articles here should be intended for a general audience. Ideally you would explain in terms a high schooler or college freshman could understand, 1) what are protein-protein interactions, 2) why it is useful to be able to predict them with a computer, and 3) the general principles involved. The only wikipedia article I have ever seen with 150 references was on Rathergate, and that because it is so controversial. You should aim for no more than a dozen, preferably review articles from easy to read journals like Current opinions in ______. You also need to review the Manual of Style and become more familiar with writing wiki-like articles. My recommendation is that you voluntarily withdraw the article and copy it into your user space (see WP:USER.) User pages are a great way to work on a complex article or figure out how to write a wiki article and they are not subject to (most of) the content guidelines of main article space. Thatcher131 05:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't understand Support_vector_machine either but it follows the general principles better, opens with a general summary; gives some specifics, and ends with a representation of the literature.Thatcher131 07:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thatcher131, who didn't vote delete, but I agree with the principles, if that makes sense. Tim, it looks like you have a broad perspective on the literature for a field that isn't covered by Wikipedia well enough. Rather than try to add all your knowledge at once, why don't you start with smaller articles on individual methods? The narrower the topic of an article, the easier it is to avoid original research while tying it together. Once you've built such a foundation, it would be relatively easy to write an article named "Protein-protein interaction prediction" that links to the more specialized methods and draws on only a couple of secondary reviews. Melchoir 06:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Niffweed17. KillerChihuahua?!? 06:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research, and recreate in future. --Terence Ong 07:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not OR, was briefly mentioned in one of my biochem lectures. Just because it says prediction, dosen't mean the article is a prediction, but rather the process by which they form said prediction. Mike (T C)   07:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite and cleanup per Thatcher131's most excellent advise. (I don't agree at all with Melchoir's suggestion of starting with smaller articles on individual computational methods.) Lambiam 09:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite as per Thatcher131 Dlyons493 Talk 11:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep per Thatcher131 Eivind 11:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This very clearly is not original research, but it may be over-complex for WP. There are many sicence articles that are equally complex, yet they do not have the number of references that this article has. It looks as if the author is prepared to learn how to make it acceptable, so why not withdraw the nomination for now and let him do it. I am only on the fringe of this sort of computational science, being more a small-molecule quantun computational chemist, but I do know this is important and it needs an article. Do not bite the newbie. Let him have a go. So Keep. --Bduke 11:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It requires a massive rewrite, but it meets Wikipedia:Notability. —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update help make this a good Wikipedia page by commenting at User:Tim@/PPIP--Tim 15:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Protein-protein_interaction_prediction&oldid=43297364"