Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hallmarks of Aging


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The Hallmarks of Aging

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

earlier i had moved this page to draft as this page seems just a copy paste..but he did not make any change and moved it again... it looks like maker of this page published his own research.... in some para there are dead citation (that why look like copy paste) this article did not summaries topic... "Life extension" article which can explain the related topic is already there and in last look at ref he written ... clearly a copy paste error India1277 (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Might even have WP:COPYVIO issues. Wikipedia already has an article on Ageing. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello - this page was created by a group of students and their instructors in a college course on the biology of aging. The course centered around the review article that is the subject of this page. Individual students summarized the concepts underlying each hallmark of aging listed in the article, and wrote a section summarizing research that has been published since the article. To the best of our knowledge, the work discussed is correctly cited. This is not a report of our own research. The cutting and pasting was a result of our technical issues in entering the text from several students' sandboxes on the final day of our course, and we did not understand what had caused the page to suddenly be labeled as a draft. We hope you will not delete the page; we are open to correcting it in a way that will make it acceptable. We also note that while there is a Wikipedia page on aging, there is not one on the "Hallmarks of Aging" article. There is a page on an analogous review article entitled The Hallmarks of Cancer, so we thought it would be appropriate to have one on The Hallmarks of Aging. Thank you! Jlevinegoucher (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You might want to review this page and try again. The article you and your students have created, does not meet our guidelines for article creation, editing and reliable sources. Your students have created the article based entirely on one review article in a medical journal. You can contribute to Ageing, and create a section within that article. But we do not need a separate article entitled "Hallmarks of Ageing." SW3 5DL (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully, it seems that the same could be said of The Hallmarks of Cancer page. A scientific review article, particularly one published in a peer-reviewed journal such as Cell, represents an unbiased description of a broad body of research. On the page we created, we then summarized research that has occurred since publication of the 2013 Cell review, citing the individual primary journal articles discussed. While we think it would be unfortunate and inconsistent to remove this page, we could consider moving it to Wikiversity, where we have a learning project devoted to our Seminar in Biological Mechanisms of Aging and Cancer. We do not agree that our material would be an appropriate addition to the Ageing entry. We did create links to our page from two other pages, Senescence and Life Extension, that cite the Hallmarks of Aging article. Jlevinegoucher (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Poor quality article. Redundant and Unencyclopediac and, reads like the student project it is. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete Unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia is not a medical journal. Reads far more like a school-project essay than an actual article. sixty nine   • speak up •  23:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * delete could have been speedied per WP:A10 vis a vis Ageing.  Even if that didn't exist this would need to be completely written to free it from OR etc. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. -Guy Macon (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2017 (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.