Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genome diversity and karyotype evolution of mammals


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Genome diversity and karyotype evolution of mammals

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Although I started this article, I now wonder whether it's in scope. It is copied from an open access journal, but I fear it may be too specialized and current to be in an encyclopedia. I worry that its technicality will not allow it to be updated, and that it will quickly become outdated as new research emerges. Inverse Hypercube (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment If you can rewrite it and explain it more so the public can read and understand it easier then keep it. I think maybe you should come up with a shorter name and use the two points as separate contents. Remember to provide some links to the related articles and websites. -- RexRowan  Talk  11:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't know enough about the topic to be able to do that. Inverse Hypercube  (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you'd like the article to be deleted, you can request speedy deletion by criterion G7. It seems to qualify. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I wanted to see if anyone disagreed that it should be deleted. I'll probably propose speedy deletion soon. Inverse Hypercube  (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep but incubate - I think the concept of such an article is good, but it will need an extensive re-write. This article, as drafted, begins to tie together a lot of information about mammalian clades, but it's too poorly organized to be useful to our core readership right now. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but in the absence of anyone willing/able to rewrite it, should it be deleted? Inverse Hypercube  (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I declined the deletion, because I think the article potentially useful to the encyclopedia. Although we normally delete when it's requested by the sole author, a contribution to the encyclopedia gives an irrevocable license, and if anyone in the world wants to make use of the material for any purpose, including using it in Wikipedia, they may do so.  Even were we to delete this, there would be nothing to stop anyone from doing the necessary technical work to reinsert it from the source. As what I did is somewhat unusual, I think I need to justify it in some more detail. The article is not at all too specialized for a general encyclopedia: it seems a well written general article on a major topic. It overlaps considerably with other articles, such as cytogenetics, but does not seem to duplicate the content of any existing article. The sourcing seems generally adequate.  Nor do I think it too "current" -- I cannot even understand the meaning. It's  not too technical--we have many equally technical or more technical articles on this subject. It will need updating, certainly, but there are dozens of people here with advanced degrees in relevant subjects (myself included). It's not original research, but a review article. I think there is general feeling that the level of sophistication of many such review articles is appropriate for Wikipedia.  Indeed there is a project to specifically write such open access content in such a way that it will be usable both in WP and in one of the PLOS journals. And there is a WikiProject Open Access. I'm going to notify them of this afd, because if we go on this route, the question of when the article can be deleted will arise again.  DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep G7 is weak, and definitely weaker than this article. An excellent demonstration of the error in that rule, to accompany WP:CENSOR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We do not delete things simply because people want to. Anarchangel (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, but copyedit because it is valid, valuable and seriously unreadable for Wikipedia;s audience. It meets inclusion criteria. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2012 (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.