Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Replicationdomain

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. The consensus is that the subject has not received sufficient coverage within the meaning of our

Replicationdomain

Replicationdomain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is asserted with references to journals and such at

• Comment I have found the same as the nominator and have searched Google and Google News and been unable to find any evidence of notability. I've requested reliable sources from the creator / major editor.
  Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete Not notable. The paper reporting this was Gilbert's in 2008. According to Scopus, it has been referred to only 3 times in the subsequent literature, all by Gilbert. No other papers use the term in the abstract or title. The other papers in the references used the term "replication domain" in a general sense, not referring to this database. PubMed gives similar results. Gilbert himself, though, is a major scientist we have, appropriately, an article on him--Scopus shows citation counts 244, 239,159 .... for his articles, h=29.(PubMed, btw, is a free database) DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG (wow).
  ping 14:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• My apologies, I didn't realize that most of the references I cited require pay for access. At FSU access to those are free. To sum up: ReplicationDomain is a free online database resource for storing, sharing and visualizing DNA replication timing and transcription data, as well as other numerical epigenetic data types. There are 28 registered scientists from America to Britain to Israel using the site to store, share and visualize epigenetic data, more are expected in near future. ReplicationDomain is linked from the NIH website at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/guide/mouse/ (Under the Expression Resources at the bottom right) and the Mouse Genome Informatics website at http://www.informatics.jax.org/genes.shtml (Under the Other Links tab). ReplicationDomain is funded by a grant from NIH and currently stores 112,019,466 data points of epigenetic data from multiple cell lines of 3 different species. Alexs99
  • Those links are not sufficient to satisfy
    ping 21:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Also ReplicationDomain is linked at http://www.oridb.org/links.php (5th link down) and http://www.epigenome-noe.net/resources/scilinks.php (under Chromatin). At this point I've demonstrated that the ReplicationDomain database is cited in papers in 8 respected scientific journals, 2 of which are by authors not related to FSU (I can't help that most scientific journals require subscription). I have shown that ReplicationDomain is linked to by major institutions such as
  NIH, Epigenome NoE and Mouse Genome Informatics. How is this not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? I've listed the $1.1 million NIH grant that funds ReplicationDomain. At this point I might point out that Mouse Genome Informatics has a Wikipedia page with no references.Alexs99 14:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The link http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Replicationdomain%22 shows papers not authored by anyone related to ReplicationDomain that cite ReplicationDomain. Alexs99 —Preceding undated comment added 15:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep per non-CoI references found above. David V Houston (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment The G Scholar link cited by Alexa above,shows only 8 papers total, of which only CJ Pink & LD Hurst in Molecular Biology and Evolution, 2009, is by unrelated people citing this work. That's one independent paper only, not the claimed "papers" The other 7 papers are all by the developers. The standards for academic notability are judged by the subject field--if this were work in some particularly obscure esoteric area of theology in a little-known language, one outside paper would still be at most borderline significant. But this is mainstream molecular biology, and a count like that is not just lack of evidence of notability, but evidence of non-notability. A grant to develop something is not proof of notability--the proof is when what gets actually developed becomes notable-- sometimes this happens, sometimes it does not happen. At present, the status is like that of an unexploited patent. They have prepared a large database. The question now is whether it will become used. I hope it will, for it sounds interesting, but hope does not translate into an article DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.