Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social, Ethical and Legal Implications of Bioengineering Animal Species


 * 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. Consensus that this is OR is clear. As for the userfied version, send that to MfD if need be. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Social, Ethical and Legal Implications of Bioengineering Animal Species

 * – ( View AfD View log )

as it stands, this is a WP:POVFORK of Genetically modified organism, especially the section controversy. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Reads like an editorial. Anything salvageable could go into the main article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as an obvious case of original research. --NellieBly (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - as WP:OR. ukexpat (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, although some of this is really BJAODN-worthy. "The specie being created will not have the same make-up as any other animal. This specie will not have a family. This is an issue because it is not right for anyone to not have family members" and "Many people believe that the bioengineering of animals is very inhumane for the reason that they do not get a say" are just a bit over the line between a dispassionate accounting of facts and advocacy. FWIW, most of the history section is plagiarized from the first link; the first two sentences are way too close to sentences in the original.  Horologium  (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete While it may be of serious academic interest, the subject is inherently unencyclopedic, and the article moreso. causa sui (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The subject is inherently encyclopedic, so you've made an error. We've already got an article that covers it over at Synthetic_biology. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete As it isn't really a stand-alone topic; it could possibly be part of Genetically modified organism, but that is outside of my scope. It has been suggested that this may in fact be a school assignment, perhaps we could split the difference by sending it to the user's sandbox? TreacherousWays (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV fork, violates WP:OR. Obviously unencyclopedic essay, and a pretty terrible one at that. -- Kinu  t/c 21:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Original research. SL93 (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article under discussion has nothing to do with Genetically modified organism, so both the original nominator and TreacherousWays are incorrect.  This is neither a POVFORK nor unencyclopedic.  This subject is about bioengineering synthetic organisms, which falls under synthetic biology, and is already covered under the Synthetic_biology section which is entirely encyclopedic and ripe for splitting out into a new article as this new user has done.  Unfortunately, this discussion shows that the community is more interested in ganging up on new editors and nominating their articles for deletion than helping collaborate and build the encyclopedia.  This article was created by a new user who registered their account at 22:03, 18 December 2011.  They created the article at 18:46, 19 December, and it was tagged for deletion at 20:06, 19 December 2011‎.  All throughout, only one person made an effort to talk to them, while their user talk page received four template messages (if you include the welcome template).  At the very beginning, someone should have pointed them to the synthetic biology page which covers this topic, but apparently, the editors in this AfD aren't here to help new users, but to template and delete their articles, which is precisely the behavior the Foundation concluded was leading to dwindling rates of editor retention.  Congratulations. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you took away the OR, how much would be left? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not OR in any way. It's a new user who started a new encyclopedia article about the ethics of bioengineering synthetic organisms.  Granted, what they have now is not usable, but it is a legitimate topic in biology and has many reliable sources supporting it. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "This is an issue because it is not right for anyone to not have family members." If that's not OR, I don't know what is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The topic is not OR. It is a well-established subject. We don't delete articles based on one strange statement.  Baby, bath water, etc. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You said, "It's not OR in any way", and I just showed you some OR. QED. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You haven't shown anything of the kind. That's not OR. The issue of whether new species can form families and reproduce is a standard topic in the ethics of bioengineering.  The author's opinion that "it is not right for anyone to not have family members" does not change the fact that this subject is well-established.  We don't delete articles because a new editor adds a value judgment. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You said there was no OR in the article, and I've demonstrated that there is OR in the article. So, again I must ask, if you were to take away the OR/editorializing/personal-opinion from the article, how much of the article would be left? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And, I've previously informed you that the subject of whether new species can form families and reproduce is a standard topic in the ethics of bioengineering. It's not OR. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said the subject was necessarily OR. I said the article content was OR. And it is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article content is based on standard topics found in the literature. It's not OR.  That the new editor has chosen to take a stand on some of these topics in violation of NPOV is another matter altogether, and isn't a good reason for deletion.  This XfD is another wonderful example of what's wrong with Wikipedia.  A new editor comes here to contribute and instead of being welcomed with open arms, is template bombed and has their article nominated for deletion in a matter of hours.  Nobody here wants to do the work, so they come here to complain. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * When every other commenter feels something is WP:OR, and one commenter alone feels otherwise, one can either decide that the consensus of editors is badly mistaken or that the lone holdout is wrong. The more likely possibility is the latter, which is the case here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Likely or not, in my opinion Viriditas is right here, and the "consensus" ganging up upon him/her is wrong. --Lambiam 01:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Ganging up" is an interestesting choice of words, considering that there were 8 "delete" !votes before Viriditas made his first comment, and only 4 after (to this point) -- how can that be construed as "ganging up"? And why the scare quotes around "consensus"? So far, you and Viriditas are the only voices heard in opposition, the rest of the comments have been to delete -- is that not a consensus? So, are you saying that you agree with Viriditas that there is no OR in the article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with V. The article contains many statements that present viewpoints that have been brought forward in the ethics debate concerning the creation of new live forms by bioengineering. As such these viewpoints can be sourced to reliable sources. What is wrong with the article as it stands, is that the author only presents those arguments and opinions from the debate that s/he apparently agrees with, and does not present them as points-of-view in a debate, but as if they are factual statements. So the article violates WP:NPOV, but that does not make it WP:OR. At least in theory it could be rewritten to a neutral point of view, which, however, is not easy; like for any ethics article, it requires the editor to be familiar with the debate and the variety of arguments and viewpoints. --Lambiam 11:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it be useful if I go into the article and remove or tag all the OR statements, and see what's left? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's necessary. If things keep on in this fasion, there's likely to be a snow close as delete, or, at the very least, a regular close as delete in 7 days.  The dissenting opinion of one editor doesn't seem to be finding any traction, not at this point, anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - OR essay, no-brainer Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't original research, and I'm getting the sense that nobody here knows what that word means. That's typical of XfD, of course. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's laden with editorializing, which is a subset of... tad-dah... original research. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not laden with editorializing. You merely pointed to one value judgement the author made, which does not make the subject as a whole OR. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Having just re-read the thing, I can confidently say that nearly every sentence in the article is personal opinion, and Tiger's reading of it is probably correct. It looks like an essay I might have written for an assignment in 4th grade or so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If that is your "confident" opinion, then I would have to say that your opinion isn't worth very much at all. The first statement in the article, "Bioengineering was first introduced in 1976, with Genentech" isn't an opinion. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That statement would be considered factual, and also factually correct if it were sourced. And that's the point. There are maybe 3 factual statements in the article. The rest is editorializing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Reads like a homework assignment. Obvious WP:ESSAY And btw, I learned how to write articles by getting templates slapped all over my early efforts. It's character-building. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You've got it backwards. Template messages are the problem, not the solution.  "Slapping" template messages on new user pages is deprecated. Don't do it. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You've never heard "Don't template the newbies"? Were you raised by wolves? Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Close. Wolverines. :) And what I've usually heard is, don't template the regulars. So are you saying don't template anybody? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Request to keep this discussion on the inclusion of the article, and pursue a discussion on the merits of templating the regulars/newcomers elsewhere. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Despite what Viriditas says, there is no salvageable content in the article; it reads exactly like someone's essay assignment. It is full of original research: "There are many social implications of the bioengineering of animal species because it is an unnatural process"; " it is not right for anyone to not have family members"; "The specie would have to rely on human researchers to take care of it and give it the care it needs"; "Another implication is choosing who is to care for this animal and take responsibility for it. Who will own it? Who will pay for any medical care it will need?" (OR, then editorialised); "Precautions need to be taken incase this animal is used for food and is poisonous." Those are the most obvious ones taken from one section alone. I've checked each one against the three source - the sources seem to be more further reading, rather than actual sources for information presented in the article. I appreciate the concerns expressed by Viriditas that this is from a new user, etc etc; however, if we were to remove all of the original research, we would be left with next to nothing, certainly not enough to continue with. Thus deletion is the best way to go; if someone wants to write a friendly message on the author's talk page about why the article was deleted and how to better contribute to Wikipedia in the future, go for it (I'll do it if no one else wants to). No, we shouldn't bite the newbies; however, that should never be a licence to allow blatantly unencyclopdic & unsalvageable material to remain on Wikipedia. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:OR, WP:ESSAY, WP:POV out the wazoo. With regards to Viriditas' comments above, Don't template the newbies does not exist. Don't template the regulars does. And is an essay, not a guideline, not a policy. I have no idea where this DTTN comes from, but if people break the rules, that's what the templates are for, no matter who they are. Regardless of this side-discussion, request snow close. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Viriditas is confusing WP:Don't bite the newbies with WP:Don't template the regulars. I concur with the snow close request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't template the newbies is an old essay from 2009 that is currently best practice on Wikipedia. That so many people here don't know this is a problem.  I haven't confused anything. Viriditas (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Where's your citation for that editor's personal essay being acclaimed "currently best practice on Wikipedia"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Best practice...sorry for being blunt, but "yeah, right". It's (a) an essay, not a guideline or policy; it's (b) in userspace, not even WP space, and (c) Wikipedia doesn't have "best practices". "Best practices" become guidelines or policies - that this essay remains in userspace demonstrates its importance (specifically, lack thereof). - The Bushranger One ping only 07:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to note that Viriditas has copied the article into the author's userspace (not "moved" as he wrote on her talk page, since it remains in mainspace), so that she can work on it. While this is often done for articles which are "not ready for prime time", as many of the commenters here have noted there is very little indication that this specific article -- as opposed to another article on the same subject -- will ever be suitable for mainspace.  Because of this, I would like to suggest that if this discussion is closed as "delete", the exactly equivalent userfied article should be deleted as well, rather than go through the unnecessary bureaucracy of a seperate MfD for it. There is no indication in the comments of the contributors here that anyone, other than Viriditas, sees userfication as a proper outcome of this discussion, so his bold action should not be taken as representing a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Viriditas seems to have strong feelings about the article. Maybe he should userfy it to his own space (or maybe his PC, offline) and see if he can salvage an actual article from it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - POV fork and pure original research. Night Ranger (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete POV fork and original research. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy. (Since there's already a copy in user-space, that translates to "delete"). I agree 100% with the OR concerns; but this is an area where wikipedia needs better content, and I believe the creator is well-intentioned. Right now, the content of the article is not suitable for article-space but if the original writer hasn't been put off by diving in at the deep end and realising there are crocodiles in the water, perhaps they'd be able to change the text so it's less like an essay and more like a summary of what reliable sources say, and that would be a good thing, and I would cheer if the improved content is later returned to article-space (perhaps with a slightly different title, or added into an existing article). I don't think we're going to improve the encyclopaedia by repeating "This content is bad" - that point has already been made - rather, we should focus on "How we can get better content?". bobrayner (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The way to get better content in regards to this essay would be to delete everything and start again - there is nothing (not even the title) which could be salvaged from this article and ever used again in the mainspace. I echo Beyond My Ken's call to delete the userfied version too. If anyone believes that something can be salvaged from this article, then they can start working on it. If the article is significantly improved before this discussion is closed, then there would be reason to keep it. If that does not happen, it further proves the point that the article is beyond repair. Essentially, if the article is not unsalvagable, then someone should easily be able to prove us wrong. Until and unless that happens, my delete votes stands. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have argued above, the article may be salvageable, but not easily – it requires that the editor be familiar with all sides of the debate. --Lambiam 19:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The only way for this article to be salvaged is to blow it up and start over - it's a notable topic, but the article is not something that can be salvaged in any way shape or form. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - The subject is well known, but the article is absolutely original research. If an editor wants to improve the article, that's his or her choice, but the current article should be deleted while and if that happens.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2011 (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.