Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proto-anticodon RNA


 * 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. There does not appear to be any information suggesting this topic meets the general notability guideline. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Proto-anticodon RNA

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article is on one paper written by one professor which has had one citation. I tried prodding it, but the one user who created the article on this one idea and on the one professor deprodded it. Since this kind of academic boosterism is unfortunately common, let me just say that the idea might or might not be good and it might or might not be true, but that Wikipedia is not the place to publish or promote one's new ideas. No secondary sources (in science, review papers) have mentioned this idea, and it should be removed from Wikipedia as soon as possible. Speciate (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 05:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I checked for other sources -- new idea in a recent paper, cited once. EEng (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete due to lack of coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Maybe this will become notable in a couple of years, but for now it's WP:TOOSOON. Qwfp (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge (in condensed form) and redirect to Albert Erives. --Lambiam 22:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it has only been cited once. I will fight you forever on this. Speciate (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOTBATTLE. The topic of a stand-alone article has to be notable, but separate notability is not required for all items of information given in an article. --Lambiam 23:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources are required for all important parts of an article, and this piece of shit idea has none! Have you forgotten that? I haven't. Speciate (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I find your belligerent tone disconcerting. I don't know what brings you to use that qualification for the paper, which was published in a respected peer-reviewed journal, but it is needlessly insulting to its author, reviewers, and the editors of the journal. Can we, please, keep this a civil discourse? The paper is cited in the paper by Fournier et al., which is a secondary source. The research was further reported on under the title "Dartmouth College Describes Research in Amino Acids" (paywall) in Health & Medicine Week of February 10, 2012. Also, while material based purely on primary sources should be avoided, per WP:PRIMARY primary sources are permitted if used carefully. --Lambiam 23:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have any idea how many ideas there are in primary sources? Billions, I'll bet. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of things that have attracted secondary sources. If you read the WP:Five pillars, you will see that including this idea anywhere on Wikipedia violates Pillar One; "not a ... vanity press, ...an indiscriminate collection of information", and Pillar Two; "...strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view". Speciate (talk) 06:27, 19 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,  Sandstein   05:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relister's comment: I must discount the nominator's arguments in assessing consensus because of their battleground demeanor and tone that is completely inappropriate for a discussion among editors of an encyclopedia.  Sandstein   05:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. A single citation (per a Google Scholar search) falls far, far short of notability guidelines. In fact, I also have my doubts about Albert Erives, which seems to fail notability (h-index of 10, nothing else to meet WP:PROF). -- 202.124.72.54 (talk) 09:30, 21 May 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.