Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T-loop deletion factor

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. Skomorokh 02:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T-loop deletion factor

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

Neither notable or verifiable. A term used in a single publication in the "Journal of anti-aging" about the journal a "journal" that strains the definition of this word. Zero hits in PubMed, one hit (this "paper") in Google Scholar. The other references in the article do not use this term and unsurprisingly do not relate to this "research". Tim Vickers (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete merge into aging or other related article. Shyamal (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what exactly? What part of this article do you think is verifiable and notable? Tim

Vickers (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I did not see your note on it not being verifiable. I saw the references cited on the article and I imagined it had something to do with the molecular biology of ageing. (surprised that we have no such article, and Evolution of ageing does not seem to have well vetted content)Shyamal (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't stated that it failed WP:V (I added that after your comment), just discussed the sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange that the journal and the author seem to have the same e-mail address, as if the author is also the publisher. The journal is too new to find indicators of trustworthiness like listing in selective services like medline or journal citation reports. Narayanese (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:NEO if nothing else. And the nominator's else is accurate, if understated. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. As as a non-
neologism. (The author of the paper is not the Vladimir Stoyanov on whom we currently have an article, but the revision history of that page might be of interest to the idle curious). Qwfp (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC) (…as might that of telomere and ageing) --Qwfp (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Content issues aside (and there are many), the entry is solely based on an article which appeared in a journal of very dubious provenance. All relevant links (e.g., to the Editorial Board) seem to be broken, and it gives an email contact that smacks of a hoax account ([email protected]). Also, this purported source was the only article in it. Malljaja (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that the the journal that provides the only source is reliable, and signs pointing toward the opposite. Narayanese (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete.

Dear Wiki members. My name is Vladimir Stoyanov and I have just come back from Cambridge, where in the SENS 4 anti aging annual conference I was giving one of the talks exactly on this novel t-loop deletion factor. The links to the abstract and the talk in Cambridge are included in the actual article. Regarding to the new 2009 online FREE journal of anti aging: you are correct appears that there were some broken links, but this is now fixed. Note however that this is not a commercial journal, which is gathering force on the bases of this year SENS4 conference, where telomere direct targeting was discussed in some more details. Thus please if you have any question regarding the validity of the paper itself, then please contact the editorial board and/or any expert on telomeres. Note however that as a new journal there is still gathering of new papers, which is in a working progress and takes time, especially when a free service is targeted. Regarding the PubMed search: clearly you are not aware, which is ok, but PubMed is an additional submission procedure, which takes upto2 years after the paper has been published, whereas the t-loop deletion factor has been just published. My wish was to keep wikipedia up to date, as I and all members of this conference in Cambridge do believe this paper to be in a great help in understanding aging and focus on the anti aging approach. Thus can you please avoid deletion tags without consulting first. I will put the text back as it was expecting if there are any future questions to address the editor board directly, which is as you have quoted [email protected], which was referred to my used Malljaja (see above) as "smacks of a hoax account", which clearly makes no sense and it is highly unprofessional to use such language. Note that this is an absolutely normal email account using professional speed and configuration for emailing, which is clearly preferable compare to the university email services, which programs are highly simplified and time consuming, which clearly is a knowledge known to the user Mallajaja, which was never contacting this email (as I have checked now with the editorial board).

Why nobody read Volume 12, Supplement 1 ISSN 1549-1684 of the Journal of Rejuvenation Research, which have many Editors: Aubrey de Grey; Michael West, VIlhelm Bohr, Rudolph Tanzi, Gregory Stock and many others world leaders in aging. Thus why don't you just apologise and stop being extremely rood, as you are not suppose to tell me what to do and where to publish! Also just because I am the chief editor, do not mean that I am biased, nor that I have revised my own paper. Why don't you see the many advantages of this new journal, which focus on helping the very particular target of anti aging? Moreover who are you to speculate how many computers there are for a single IP address, and what have this to do with your mission "to promote knowledge". Appears to me that you have forgotten what are you here for. Thus perhaps it is a good idea for you to read the wiki idea and contribute. Note that none of you have any knowledge of anti aging and telomeres, thus you are better use the professional work for the professionals, instead of embarrassing the image of wikipedia. It is pity, as even a bachelor degree BSc (as you) will see the original making sense mechanism, as long as it have a look at the paper. Thus all of you: "how about you actually read the paper?". Further to that I should say that you should be the last people to be even considering to be deleting my contributions, as if you actually read them you will see that I have made only additions to our current knowledge, so that the telomere science community can take advantage of as much info regarding telomeres as possible. Note that PubMed use is most importantly not up to date source, and it is surely not enough for a telomere maintenance ideas, as Maria Blasco is the one managing to induce telomerase in somatic cells, but her problem is that cancer levels also increase in her cells. Thus it is my approach which is the ONLY one who target directly telomere maintenance. Thus I allow for people to look at what helped me to find the telomere maintenance gene, as I wish for more people to work independently on targeting directly this telomere shortening problem. Now if you don't mind I have work to do, so it will be of great help for everyone, if you put back my additions, as I will not do that for you! I had enough of your childish attitude.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.113.227 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 September 2009

Unfortunately, we have no way of verifying your credentials, so your opinions must be backed by reliable sources. Equally you have no way of verifying that I have a PhD in biochemistry, know quite a lot already about telomeres and the end-replication problem, and did in fact read your paper. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete: 08.09.2009 2.46am. Clearly there are many sources of references for this novel t-loop deletion factor. It was also published in the Journal of Rejuvenation Research see page 52. There are more abstracts published by Stoyanov V at this page, which will help you resolve the notable and verifiable sources. Note also that the actual paper is very good and actually really important in the anti aging research.

Aaabbbzzz (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC) — Aaabbbzzz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. We don't have Wikipedia articles about single scientific articles, especially articles that are published in unheard of journals that have only published a single article, especially if the author is Editor-in-Chief of the journal. Vladimir, seriously, that's an untenable conflict of interest. If you want to be taken seriously as an academic you will forget about this "journal" and submit to established journals that conduct independent peer review. PubMed indexing is standard for biomedical journals, and it takes nothing like two years to arrange; it's pretty routine and should be in place before a journal launches. You might be thinking of Medline indexing. Fences&Windows 03:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the so many good reasons listed above. Wikipedia is not a way to publish research that can't seem to get into any real journals.Fuzbaby (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I pointed out at the AfD for Will Vladimir Stoyanov, the IP that Stoyanov is using here is the same IP that is web hosting much of the referencing content. Look at the direct link to the "Journal of Anti-Aging" in that article. It's an individual trying to use WP to publish original thought. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonnotable original research; self promotion. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aaabbbzzz (talk) and Hendentry (talk) who created Will Vladimir Stoyanov appears to be the same. Dy yol (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2009 (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.