Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code biology


 * 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 delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Code biology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NEO with no secondary sources to show the term's usage; seems to be a recent one-man splinter theory from biosemiotics. The only sources that mention the concept of "code biology" are Marcello Barbieri's 2003 paper and 2015 book, all other sources appear to be general papers about codes in nature which Barbieri has presumably used as references when writing his book.

I prodded the article as a WP:NEO. User:Marcello Barbieri edited the article a little, removed the template and explained at Talk:Code biology that "The fact that the term “Code Biology” appears to be associated with only one author (Marcello Barbieri) is because he has invented that term to indicate the study of all codes of life, and in particular the study of all codes that came after the genetic code and before the codes of culture." Even with the extra context about Barbieri dismissing biosemiotics as unscientific and forming a splinter society, if a man has invented a term and the term has not been the subject of secondary sources, the article fails WP:NEO. McGeddon (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - For notability concerns, for COI editing, and for copyvio concerns. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Cleaning out the copyvio doesn't change my notability concerns and COI concerns. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:COI, WP:GNG fail, copyvio, and a very strong appearance of WP:OR as well. Guy (Help!) 00:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Note Cleaned out as much copyright violations/close paraphrasing as I did find. No opinion on the underlying subject so far.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article lacks a proper lede sentence. Maybe the lede was cleaned out as copyvio.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did remove it for that reason and put a note on the talk page requesting a new one.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - clear case of WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, WP:COI. Any comments on the author's page, Marcello Barbieri, for a deletion nom also? It seems to fail most of the same issues. Blythwood (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe he is notable. His bio has been substantially cleaned up and I have added sources. We should not have such a kneejerk reaction to an autobio. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

In that paper: (1) Code Biology is explicitly mentioned in the Abstract and in the Conclusions, (2) The Introduction begins with the words...”In the new era of Code Biology...”, (3) the forth section of the paper is entitled “Plant cell walls in the context of Code Biology”, and (4) in Acknowledgements only Brazilians institutions are mentioned and there is no mention whatsoever of the Code Biology Society. Marcello Barbieri (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per policy already discussed. And how can the world be literally teeming with codes? Roches (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment “A paper unrelated to the Code Biology Society that explores the term “code biology” has been published by Evelyn Tavares and Marcos Buckeridge in Plant Science (2015) Vol 241, p. 286-294.
 * Comment - I partly disagree with the original research argument, because the author's research has been published outside Wikipedia. However, I am not changing my !vote, because there are still POV and COI issues.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - self-advertisement by the coiner of this neologism, with no substantive existence outside the creator's own work. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Revision of Marcello Barbieri page (3 Feb 2016)
Author’s accompanying  letter:

The reviewer has specifically asked the author to “… provide more information on what others have said about him”, and to this purpose I have explicitly quoted the comments made by Karl Popper, René Thom and Carl Woese about “The Semantic Theory of Evolution” (1985) and those made by Noam Chomsky and Michael Ghiselin about “The Organic Codes” (2003). Admittedly, those comments appeared on the back-covers of my books, but there is no doubt (I hope) that they were free expressions of those academics.

In order to give the reader more information, I have substantially restructured the page in question, with the result that the word count has raised from 1152 to 2432 words and the references from 12 to 49. It remain true, however, that Code Biology is a field in its infancy and to illustrate this point I have compared it to what electricity was at the time of Isaac Newton and Benjamin Franklin.

Finally I have included, as requested, “an Early Life and Education section stating, among other things, where he obtained his Ph.D.” (the old Italian “Laurea” is not exactly equivalent to a Ph.D. but it was a full academic qualification).

I remain of course willing to address other questions if necessary. Best regards Marcello Barbieri Marcello Barbieri (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Revised Code Biology page (8 Feb 2016)
Author’s accompanying  letter:

This revised version aims at addressing the points raised by the reviewers.

Reviewer McGeddon has remarked that Code Biology has originated by “Barbieri dismissing biosemiotics as unscientific and forming a splinter society”. In reality the polemics with Biosemiotics was only a secondary accident and for this reason it has been removed from the revised version.

Reviewer McGeddon has also raised the issue of the secondary sources in Code Biology, and I suggest that they are of three kinds: (1) the 12 members of the Code Biology Society (see their websites in External links), (2) the participants in the Code Biology Conferences (see the conference photogalleries in External links); and (3) all those who have published articles on the organic codes that appeared after the genetic code and before the codes of culture (see their papers in References).

Reviewer Dianna has pointed out that the article “appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder”. That impression may be due to the fact that the concepts of Code Biology are bound to be expressed with apparently similar formulations. At any rate, I am the owner of the website www.codebiology.org  and I am quite willing to comply with the Wikipedia rules. Please let me know what I have to do, thank you.

This revised version has also been simplified by removing the first section dedicated to the arbitrariness of genetic code, and by starting directly with the discoveries of the other organic codes.

I remain of course willing to address other questions if necessary. Best regards Marcello Barbieri Marcello Barbieri (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia – Revised Code Biology page (10 Feb 2016) NOTES for the Reviewers:
Notes for Reviewer McGeddon:

[1]  The first objection was that Code Biology has originated by “Barbieri dismissing biosemiotics as unscientific and forming a splinter society”. In reality the polemics with Biosemiotics was only a secondary accident and for this reason it has been removed from the last revised version.

[2]  The second objection was directed to find out the secondary sources in Code Biology, and the answer is that they are of three kinds: (1) the 12 members of the Code Biology Society (see their websites in External links), (2) the participants in the Code Biology Conferences (see the conference photogalleries in External links); and (3) all those who have published articles on the organic codes that appeared after the genetic code and before the codes of culture (see their papers in References).

Note for Reviewer Diannaa:

I (Marcello Barbieri) am the owner and the copyright holder of the website www.codebiology.org  and I declare that in the article “Code Biology” submitted to Wikipedia I have used the material contained in that website only as a source of information, not as a source of content. To my knowledge all sentences have been expressed in new terms. I am willing furthermore to give Wikipedia any license that may be necessary for donating copyrighted material to Wikipedia. Yours faithfully Marcello Barbieri Marcello Barbieri (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment to Marcello Barbieri
You, User:Marcello Barbieri, aren't helping your cause to keep this article by posting at such length here. You are only providing us with additional evidence of non-neutral point of view and conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for now at best and draft & userfy later if needed as none of this suggests a better encyclopedia-set article. SwisterTwister   talk  06:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

12 February 2016
Code Biology is based on the discoveries of new organic codes that have been published in the past 20 years (all quoted in References). The papers in question (except one) could not mention “Code Biology” because this term was introduced in 2012, but they undoubtedly belong to that research field. The key point is that the above discoveries have circulated only in small circles, and most biologists are still unaware of the fact that many organic codes have appeared on Earth after the genetic code. The proposed article has precisely the purpose to fill this gap and to call attention to the new biological reality that is emerging from the experimental evidence.

As for the license problem, I fully accept that Wikepedia has the copyright of all statements present in the article and that everybody can edit them. I do not accept, however, that people can edit the statements that are present in the website www.codebiology.org. To my knowledge, the two groups of statements have been expressed with different words, and I am prepared to make further changes if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcello Barbieri (talk • contribs) 09:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Marcello, I think it's a semantic issue, related more to linguistics. The Organic Codes book by you even has the subtitle of "An Introduction to Semantic Biology". A definition for code: "a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy." If you ignore the especially it's essentially just a system for easier representation. We represent DNA with letters, numbers and the sort. But this doesn't make it any special school of biology. It just means you are simplifying patterns and matrixes to code words and characters. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Selective merge or redirect to Biosemiotics. This is a sub-field of biosemiotics (and Barbieri's work has received outside attention, this is not just a crank idea) and deserves a mention there. Anyone looking up "code biology" will be better served by finding our article on biosemiotics than being presented with nothing, as though the term and research don't exist. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think "code" is even close to being the right word for this stuff after reading about it. Semiotics can be summarized as being about "communication" (though that's simplifying it a bit). Biosemiotics would be communication of things like cells. Semiotics is a much better word for it, indeed. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We are supposed to rely on reliable sources, not our own opinions and interpretations. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You want a source for why biosemiotics is a better term for the field than code biology? I don't think I can offer any such studies comparing the two. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2016 (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.