Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protein Linguistics
Protein Linguistics was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete.
- Delete, merge (if there are any relevant parts of links) or rewrite (complete). Written in the style of original research (see what Wikipedia is not).
Google:protein linguisticshttp://www.google.com/search?q=%22protein+linguistics getsoneabout 21 Google hits. --Lexor|Talk 08:53, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)- Suggest a merge of some relevant information into protein structure prediction. --Lexor|Talk 09:09, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Original research. Suppose Proteins were a clan speaking a particular language what would they be? Scottish, presumably. Clan McHemoglobin, I can see it now. I can't see any relevant information to merge, but if anyone else does, be my guest. This should still not stay. JRM 12:40, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)
- Delete, I wouldn't say it's cranky, but this is the very def of original research. Wyss 20:21, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a place for new theories/original research. Ливай | ☺ 22:07, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Lexor is a total idiot who has no idea how to use Google. If you typed "protein linguistics" you do not get 1 result. You do not search Google by using underscores between words (e.g. protein_linguistics) Comment left unsigned by 68.97.132.215 JRM 01:47, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
- In my defense, you'll notice I used the autowiki link: [[Google:protein linguistics]] (note the absence of an underscore!), which generates the link Google:protein linguistics, this generates a search for "protein_linguistics" (with the underscore), rather than "protein linguistics" (which is a bug in the link generation software which I was not aware of). I already noted this fact on the User talk:Natarajanganesan. It does not help matters to throw around phrases like "total idiot". --Lexor|Talk 03:09, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
- I wouldn't know about the "total idiot" part, but you're right. You do not in fact get one result, you get 15. Which doesn't change the fact that this article is a verbatim copy of [1], making it either a copyright violation or original research. Please see What Wikipedia is not. If you are the copyright holder or have permission, you at least need to rewrite this article to conform to an encyclopedic standard. As it stands, it's not suitable. JRM 01:47, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
- Delete. If keratin were a tree, what kind of tree would it be? Very Barbara Waltersish. - Nunh-huh 02:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I think this is not so clear. My concern with this page is largely the opposite: the application of linguistics to biology, including proteins and others entities, is well established, yet this article makes it sound newfangled and conjectural. For example, probably the most widely used textbook in bioinformatics is Biological Sequence Analysis by Durbin et al., which describes computational biology techniques explicitly in terms of linguistics. It was written in 1998. Having said that, a lot of the Wikipedia article does curiously focus on its authors work, esp. the link about "precision, recall and f-scores", and the manner of writing and focus on metaphor makes it sound somewhat quirky. Also, I don't see why we need an article about "protein linguistics" in place of a more general article on the application of linguistics to biology. At any rate, I wouldn't object if the article were deleted, but perhaps Natarajanganesan could write a more objective article (or perhaps he'd rather not). BTW, a more responsible article on linguistics & biology is in this Nature article (it was one of the 15 google hits). Zashaw 01:54, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Mikkalai 03:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Elf-friend 11:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. This is similar to sequences of nucleotides (letters) makes amino acids (words), and sequences of amino acids makes peptides (sentences), blah blah blah analogies but this should go into protein structure prediction. At the very least, the article would have to include some scientific concepts, like Ramachandran plots, steric hindrance, etc as grammar rule analogies to be a keeper (and even then...) --jag123 07:57, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.