Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computational epigenetics

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 - Non-admin closure. D.M.N. (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computational epigenetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Page is essentially original research and the content is simply material lifted verbatim from the research paper so this is a copyright issue as well. Montco (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it is the author's own research, but it's not original here - it's properly referenced to a peer-reviewed journal, Bioinformatics. The only issue might be whether the "Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License" under which it's offered from Bioinformatics is compatible with the requirements of the GFDL; but as the article is a precis, and the wording isn't actually copied verbatim from Bioinformatics, I don't see a problem. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bongwarrior (talk) 07:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with JohnCD. I also note that the author in his first edit, hoped that others would add to this article. Let us give others time to do so. It is the wiki way. --Bduke (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Leaving aside the debate over whether "Computational X" is its own field or a subfield of each X, there appears to be a goodly amount of research in the field using the term. If it is good enough for the Max Planck Institutes, it is good enough for me. Eldereft (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2008 (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.