Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proto-Domain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep as a dab page. ELIMINATORJR 15:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proto-Domain

Proto-Domain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Probably non-notable terminology. Googling for "proto-domain" + organism brings up precisely two hits. Oli Filth 00:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. All this does is define the term. Is there something else that would provide for more information, other than a brief blurb? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 01:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Looking at the references, this seems to be on the same topic as the existing article Red rain in Kerala, and the tree of life diagram is already in panspermia. Espresso Addict 01:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Person who added the term's thoughts to deletion and merger Hello, I would like to note to tiger, that once it has been decided that this term can stay, I will include the following: everything known about the organisms, including their ability to grow in organic and inorganic mediums. I will include a detailed description and picture of their life cycle. I will include, pending approval from the creator of the article, include all images of these organisms in addition to the ones already available. I will further discuss how these organisms have no evidence of dna, and point to the possibility of Protein Nucleic Acid, or PNA, as being a possible precursor informational macromolecule of DNA. AND LASTLY, as i do with all things i've put on wiki, I will source the living *%^@ out of any claim I make, and try my best to show the opposite side. With reference to the comments on merging, I do agree that this is related to Red Kerala, the only evidence of Proto-Domain organisms came from the study of this Red Rain, however, the importance of the term Proto-Domain, could far supercede the Red Rain of Kerala, and it is thus essential to keep this separate, yet related to both Panspermia, and the Red Rain of Kerala —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.12.48 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 27 July 2007
    • The problem is not the discussion of the scientific issues, but the fact that there appear to be no reliable sources which assert the notability (or existence, even) of the term "Proto-domain". Oli Filth 08:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • It's proposed in the papers by Louis linked from the article, which I believe are prints from peer-reviewed journals. More of a problem to my mind is that the term is already used in biochemistry for primitive domains of proteins. Espresso Addict 11:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • If you have references, you need to add them before the AfD closes. A failure to add the information results in our inability to review it - and if we can't review it, how do you expect to change our minds? By the way, the use of expletives - bowdlerized or not - does not augment your position. In my honest opinion, it more or less detracts from your arguments, as it comes off as uncivil. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • There were references supplied in an earlier version. Espresso Addict 19:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • For example Here's your life cycle, if you want me to add more, get rid of this stupid deletion consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyee5 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 27 July 2007
  • Comment. I'm worried about retaining the separate article as by its presence it gives credence to the existence of an organism that at the moment appears to represent at best hypothesis and at worst wild speculation. If there's clear evidence that the organism really is what Louis claims, then why aren't Science & Nature & the like fighting over publishing about it? If the article is retained then the fact that the existence of the organism does not represent mainstream thought needs to be clarified. I definitely prefer to merge with Red rain in Kerala, so that the various explanations can be weighed side by side. Espresso Addict 05:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Panspermia. This article appears to duplicate most of what the Panspermia article says, but the Panspermia article has a wider scope, and therefore puts the information in context better. —gorgan_almighty 12:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oli Filth Not enough 'reliable references.'? My count is SIX, I'd like you to look at spores, that has less references than this issue topic, the first sentence links you to my most reliable source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.185.12.48 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 27 July 2007.
    • These are all links to papers by a single author, and I'm not sure they're peer-reviewed. There appears to be no use of this term for this purpose outside of these papers. Oli Filth 18:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Espresso comment. I concur that this has not been well spoken of, but if you have anymore suggestions as to how to neutralize i'd be happy to hear it. I took what u said about it at best being a hypothesis by main stream science and including that. I see a lot of comments about merging, and again the topics are related, and if it really bothers people, this whole organism decription can be added to Panspermia and Red rain in Kerala, but I do think that if Proto-Domain is unbiased, neutral, that this specific link is necessary. Check my changes and see if you still find problems Espresso and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.12.48 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 27 July 2007
    • My personal view is that some further neutralisation is probably still needed, but I'd prefer to leave it until the community has come to a consensus on where to put the material. I'm a very slow editor, and I don't enjoy having to do things twice! Espresso Addict 18:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete (edit conflict) there seems to be one published paper, in "Astrophysics and Space Science". a respectable journal, (though the editor of that journal is reported in New Scientist as having gone to extraordinary lengths to dissociate himself from it: it wasn't me that accepted it but the other editor, and he's died since then) and evidence for its discussion in New Scientist, so I suppose it is worth an article. But not this one, using an invented term. (I take account also of Expresso Addict's mention that the term is used otherwise in a related subject). Since there seems to be no standard terminology at this point, Red rain in Kerala will have to do, and what should be included there is an editing question only. Merge the addition few references from here into that article. WP neither certifies scientific discoveries, nor fails to certify them. It just reports what others have certified -- or failed to certify , if it turns out to be pseudo science. It's not up to us to judge, or even argue about whether its true. (There was after all one analogous case: Prions). DGG (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete if you wish, it has been merged to Red Rain in Kerala Now you can feel free to give red rain trouble, i'm tired of arguing.
  • Comment - the article now exists as a disambig page, but I'm of the opinion that it is disambiguating things that don't need to be dabbed. My !vote stands... for now. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • One thing that might actually genuinely need disambiguating isn't currently there, viz. proto-domain. Espresso Addict 18:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as disambig. The term proto-domain apparently has valid use in biochemistry, and the use in these other articles is probably notable. Haven't checked for secondary sources though. —gorgan_almighty 10:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Relisted, with the focus placed on the entry as a disambiguation page. El_C 19:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy close as irrelevant. The Disam page has two good links on it as is 1/ Domain, a category of living organisms, that has recently replaced kingdoms in some Biology texts.2/Protein domains, in biochemistry. This makes it an editing question. DGG (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as disambig per my comments above. —gorgan_almighty 13:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or fix (target pages) - Three out of the four articles target by the disambig do not mention the term proto-domain. Oli Filth 13:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a good point. I still favour disambiguation though, as the articles are fixable. —gorgan_almighty 14:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I favoured merge with redirect above, and I'm happy to go with the disambiguation page. Basically proto-domain means 'prototypical domain', where 'domain' has a range of specialised meanings in zoology, biochemistry, physics, maths, computing &c&c, so a disambiguation page seems a sensible solution. Espresso Addict 14:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per DGG - you can't delete a disambiguation page because you don't like all but two or more of the entries, that's just silly. ←BenB4 13:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • As I said previously, only one of the target articles mentions the term, so this disambig page currently isn't very useful; it points to pages that (to the layman reader) have nothing to do with "proto-domain". If the target articles could be amended, I'd have no problems with this. Oli Filth 13:20, 2 August 2007 (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.