Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biological Resource Center


 * 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 merge to Biorepository. Merge away...

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy new year! Missvain (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Biological Resource Center

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Can't find any coverage indicating that this is a notable topic Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * comment This comes across as jargon for something I might recognize if it were called by its common name. If it were expanded to the point of explaining what it really is, I might favor keeping it. Mangoe (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This term seems to cover what are more commonly known as gene banks and genomic databases. The jargon is too obscure for this to be the page title if the article is kept. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Merge, see below. - as written the article is only sourced to the OECD definition, which is really vague. You have to sort through all the University of X Biological Resource Centers, and the handful of bio departments that seem to have given this name to their study help/tutoring service/office hours, but there are some sources that discuss the concept under this name, often about genomics or microbiology collections - for example, , , . Search results also overlap with a company called the Biological Resource Center which apparently got in some trouble a couple of years ago for misusing human remains, and which may itself be notable. (Even better, the owner of the human-remains company was apparently called Stephen Gore.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "The Biological Resource Centre" that got into trouble for misusing human remains is not the subject of this article. The other references you link are effectively covering gene banks, which we already have an article for. A redirect to gene bank seems appropriate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Heh, okay: "...which may itself, also, separately, be notable, as the topic of another, different article" :)
 * This is broader than just gene banks - culture collections are for sure included, and the first article I linked uses a broad enough definition to include a 16th-century herbarium. I notice we also have biorepository, though, which does seem to be essentially the same subject (see, ), so I'd say merge there. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀 Locomotive207 - talk  🌀  00:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge into biorepository. They have essentially the same scope, cover the same facilities, and biorepository has more and better citations/structure. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.