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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synaptogenomics[edit]

Synaptogenomics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Google scholar gives three hits from the group that introduced the term (one of whom it appears wrote the article) and little evidence that the concept has received coverage elsewhere. A general Google search also does not indicate any widespread use of the term. I do not think that the concept (however valid) has received the kind of independent coverage from reliable secondary sources required to write a neutral encyclopaedia article. Guest9999 (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Tending towards delete or merge to....what I am not sure - unless something surprises me. I'll notify WP:MED. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per WP:NEO: This is a "protologism"; it is not widely used and the page appears to have been created to promote usage of a term. If the term catches on such that there is a field of research to describe here then a page would be justified, but otherwise not notable and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  :-) Madeleine ✉ ✍ 22:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Any neologism with "-omics" is suspect. It just indicates the type of science where you fire a shotgun at a problem in expectation of some results. Not quite like Ernest Rutherford and his helium atoms through. But I digress. JFW | T@lk 22:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, in PubMed two papers use this word, both from 2006 and both from the same authors. This is not a notable or widespread term. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just because a group of genetic variations found, does not make it a branch of medicine (likewise no sub-branch of study of FlyBase for genetic variations affecting just the wings of Drosophila melanogaster - what I shall be the first and last to term "Drosophil-aero-genomics")
• Delete as neologism with no apparent outside support. Ford MF (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I've notified Daforerog (talk · contribs) of this AfD, also issues of WP:COI citing ones own sources.David Ruben ^Talk 20:18, 10 June 2008 (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.