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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abscription[edit]

Abscription (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I speedied this and it was cluelessly reverted here. As noted in the speedy nomination, this article is completely sourced to unreliable, WP:SPS refs from the company Ribomed Biotechnologies, Inc. and, was created by a SPA. This is 100% advertisement and would have to be completely rewritten from reliable sources if it were to remain in the encyclopedia. Opening a completely-waste-of-time deletion discussion. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete under WP:G11 - I concur with the nominator here. Promotional nonsense, obviously promotional, with no reason I can think of to decline the Speedy Deletion. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't think it's notable (or even comprehensible) enough, indeed, thanks for spotting it. PaleoNeonate (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was pointed out by User:DennisPietras, here. credit where credit is due. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete having been the one who stumbled upon this article and brought it to jytdog's attention, and being a newbie, I don't know if I'm supposed to vote, but, I agree it should be dispatched with speedily. I found it enormously entertaining that Adam9007 has a userbox on their page which indicates that they support "... deletion of articles that violate policies and guidelines." and yet they opposed this one that even a newbie spotted! DennisPietras (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the easiest article to evaluate for deletion, so different opinions are likely. The criteria for speedy deletion are also rather restricted. I think your vote indeed counts. Thanks, PaleoNeonate (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Further analysis of article Again, I don't know if it is customary to do this, but in response to @PaleoNeonate: about the difficulty of evaluating the article, I'll write this. IF I thought there was an acceptable source in the article, it might be a candidate to be incorporated into Transcription (biology)#Promoter escape or Abortive initiation. Abortive initiation is an informative article created by @Iamozy:, who put Abscription into the "see also" section of that article. So, I believe that an old fart like me and a young subject-expert like Iamozy both agree that there is nothing in abscription worth having in an article about what RNA polymerase does early on. DennisPietras (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This assay might eventually become standard in the industry; however, in the mean time, it is a copyrighted process. It has been cited in the scientific literature, but is overwhelmingly cited by the original developers (those who also own the patents). I vote delete and suggest a very brief mention is included in a parent article (maybe bisulfite sequencing?) If included into another article, the patents should not be cited. I suggest: M. Hanna and D. McCarthy (2009), "Abstract #5173: Abscription-based, bisulfite-free, sensitive detection of methylated CpG islands", American Association for Cancer Research, 69 (9): 5173. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 06:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the revert of speedy mentioned in the nomination seems perfectly reasonable to me. The article text does not promote any particular company, person or publication; it does not say "abscription is a fantastic new technique that will cure cancer and clone unicorns" or anything like it, and even if it did it would hardly meet the WP:G11 barrier of would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION.. Of course, it's still a single-primary-source topic, so it should be deleted, but not as a G11 speedy (and I do not see any other fitting CSD). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2017 (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.