Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extrapolation based molecular systems 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. ✗ plicit  13:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Extrapolation based molecular systems biology

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article had previously been nominated for PROD in 2009 by, "Article is just a coatrack for a website the user is promoting, SystemsBioInsight.com." I mistakenly renominated for PROD with my concerns being "Unreferenced (list of authors but no titles), orphaned since 2009". I confess I missed the previous PROD in the edit history, but I agree with SquidSK also (they appear to be inactive now) Amkilpatrick (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Strong delete. Basically a bit of self-advertisement for a technique virtually unknown and unapplied in either systems biology or (still less) molecular biology. No proper reference citations. The authors mentioned (apart from Denis Noble, who, I suspect, had nothing to do with this) are also virtually unknown. No significant presence of Extrapolation based molecular systems biology at Web of Science. The web site SystemsBioInsight.com seems not to exist any more (if it ever did). Athel cb (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. The concept of using statistical algorithms to guess an organism's characteristics from just one set of its 'omics data is well established (we study genes because they tell us what the organism will do), as is integration of 'omics data by statistical algorithms. Maybe one day the concept will need a name, but it isn't currently called 'Extrapolation based molecular systems biology'. This looks like a page set up to promote a term that has not yet gained widespread (or any) acceptance. The page also has no meaningful information; it's a paragraph of technobabble unsupported by any citations, attached to what looks like a slide lifted from a powerpoint presentation, with incomplete references to primary literature, all old enough to suggest that if the term were going to become important, it would have made some headway by now. Elemimele (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is an outright nonsense - as written. My very best wishes (talk) 17:25, 2 June 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.