Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Envirome


 * 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The result was withdrawn. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Envirome

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject has some existence but miserably fails WP:GNG. Also per WP:NOTNEO, WP:DESCRIBE. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn: I have withdrawn the nomination after Mark's major revamping of the article. I no longer believe that this subject is unsalvageable or that the only option left here is deletion. -- Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, NN, neologism. Unsourced OR, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  08:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  08:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Withdraw my vote and leave the matter to the biologists. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete as meaningless babble. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC).
 * Comment The article itself doesn't explain the term well. But I don't think the term is a neologism; it is an "omics" style word used in the fields of psychiatry and genetic epidemiology and has been in use for at least 15 years. See, for instance, the academic articles Understanding the roles of genome and envirome: methods in genetic epidemiology and Epidemiology and social aspects of the human envirome. Evirome is meant to be an analog of genome, meaning the totality of environmental effects on a disease. I think an article could be built discussing enviromes and environomics, but this article isn't a promising start. --Mark viking (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because it's around for quite some time, that doesn't mean it's notable. Believe me, if I could improve the article, I would do so instead of resorting to time-consuming deletion discussions. I simply couldn't find enough sources to expand on this subject. The best source I could find is,  which defines the term as, "The envirome can be defined as the set of environmental features which have contributed to the establishment of a unique genome. [...]the envirome is the ′meaningful or significant environment′ for a particular gene pool defining a given organism." To me, it is quite clear that the ′envirome′ is not notable in itself yet but rather as an upshot of genome theory. Hence I would suggest a merge with Genome/Genomics, albeit I doubt, not much of the article is currently salvageable.  Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 15:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I have rewritten the article from scratch. The article is now fully cited to seven peer-reviewed academic papers. Two of these papers (the Cooper and Neiderhiser papers) are secondary sources in that they are reviews that discuss in-depth the envirome and enviromics. There is a third review by Anthony I did not use. With multiple in-depth reliable sources, the topic is shown to be notable and the rewritten article shows that it is possible to construct at least a short article from the sources. A notable topic and an article with (in my opinion) no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2013 (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.