Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inherited human DNA repair gene mutations that increase cancer risk


 * 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 DNA repair-deficiency disorder. To the extent deemed useful by editorial consensus, of course.  Sandstein  06:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Inherited human DNA repair gene mutations that increase cancer risk

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Per WP:STAND, a list article should bring together separate articles that are related. Most of the mutations do not have their own articles. This is kind of useless in providing an uninformed reader a direction to go to learn more.

Also per WP:CRITERIA, the title is way too long and fails to be succinct. Not a reason to delete, but it does indicate that it's kind of an "invented" title in an attempt to bring together non-Wikipedia articles into one place.

Finally, not to cast aspersions on the author who created this article, but many of the citations appear to be his own publications. This isn't quite spam, but in some other context, we would consider it to be so. Maybe if a writer could jump on this article who doesn't have conflict of interest, maybe it would be all right.

Right now, it doesn't add much to the body of knowledge for Cancer on Wikipedia. However, at some point that each of the mutation has its own article, then a list article may actually be useful (with a better article title) SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 12:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 12:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 12:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:Content fork. Same material already exists at DNA repair and DNA repair-deficiency disorder.Novangelis (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NODEADLINE. This list has the potential to be quite valuable. The objections listed above, including COI, are not compelling to me. Jclemens (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Not sure if I should "vote" (yes, I know it's not a vote) here, so delete if I'm doing something wrong, it is my first delete request. There seems to be conflicting guidelines. It always seems to me that anyone can find some obscure or popular law, guideline, rule or regulation on Wikipedia that supports their point of view. I still think that there's no real need for a list that actually doesn't list a whole bunch of articles, just a bunch of mutations. Maybe I'm full of crap on this issue. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge it into DNA repair-deficiency disorder. That article's short and it's a plausible title. Shadowjams (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the last comment. The title of the article being debated is rather long-winded, but to merge it with an article with a shorter title would solve the problem of the title. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)




 * Merge as per Shadowjams/S Marshall to retain history. Delete basically OR by synthesis, someone's point of view. Also Oppose Merge - a very long title not likely to be typed in as a search. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Shadowjams is correct. That does need to be merged: DNA repair-deficiency disorder would potentially benefit from the content.  With all due respect for Chiswick Chap, I suspect he may have missed the point.  The purpose of a merge is to retain the content (and, particularly, the reliable sources) when moving material on Wikipedia.  This will leave a redirect, which we must not delete because the redirect keeps our list of contributors intact (which is necessary in order to comply with Wikipedia's copyright licencing policy).  If we delete the redirect, then the deleting administrator would need to perform a WP:History merge.  We avoid unnecessary work for our admin corps by keeping the redirect even if it's an implausible search term.— S Marshall  T/C 11:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right, it's an abstruse point on a badly-constructed article and I missed it. While I'd much rather bin the thing tidily, I accept we must retain the hideous mess for copyright purposes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Unless someone has already merged material from that poorly sourced, poorly formated, jargon-encumbered list, there is no requirement that we retain it for copyright purposes. The list already existed, and deep sixing the mess remains a valid option. I wasn't explicit, but when I recommended deletion, the absence of novel content worth merging was a major factor.Novangelis (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's poorly-formatted and jargon-encumbered but in what way is it poorly-sourced?— S Marshall T/C 16:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not that the references are unsuitable, but the selection is on the old side and hapharard. We can flesh out the existing material with just these two more recent review sources: . With better references I might have recommended merger.Novangelis (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that we can write it with only two sources doesn't mean we should throw out others. They may be haphazard and old, but there's no suggestion that they're inaccurate.  Look, Novangelis, the whole wiki philosophy is that you build on and improve what other people have written before.  You don't just throw out others' work and start again from a clean sheet, even when that would be easier.  If it's fixable we're supposed to fix it.— S Marshall  T/C 17:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, we're perfectly allowed to WP:TNT if that is the best route to a better article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

--Ossip Groth (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * MERGE others proposed to merge the table into DNA repair-deficiency disorder, a headline-article without useful but quite readable contents. So both would be ennhanced - the table finds its host, the host finds its contents. It is a quite long tragedy that wikipedia wants to have small enjoyable readable bits of contents which would suffice the old grandmas specifications but which do not even try to reflect their putative (they wont write) authors intellectual capabilities. Wikipedia tells it is professional - and every time if (something of authors professionalisms apperars) {the terminators get into action to delete him, from a slight view of paranoia;}. Tabulations (exception ASCII, Programming languages) are the absolute KO for any article, because there is a basic misunderstanding in the wiki outline what the contents of todays systematic biology are and what wiki-type conversation is and that the latter is essentially non-compatible with the matrix-like thinking of todays biologists. There are things which cannot be described by oversimplicification: Not one sentence of physics goes without differential equations, i would be happy if one told be how to solve the schrödingers equation, but I and every user has to accept that it is impossible to describe any scientific topic in a populistic way. Science is not entertainment, and wikipedia is not entertainment, so wikipedia should be allowed to go scientfically, by contents and by language. Since I came to visit the del section because of my own article on Metatextbook of Medicine, I created the weblinks section to show what it is esseantially useful for.
 * 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.