Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algebraic biology

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. — CharlotteWebb 00:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Algebraic biology

Dicdef. Extremely little context. Admin JoJan removed CSD and added "some context", but it's still not enough. Delete or wiktify. Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for eventual expansion, unless some biologist suggests where it might be merged to. The article adequately demonstrates at least some academic currency of the term. As such, this is a stub that begins at its logical beginning. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I am a little bit torn over this article. Don't get me wrong I find the article to be worthy of an article in Wikipedia as it adds to the greater whole of information and it is a distinct subject worthy of its own article. However at the moment it is a one liner. I am not an algebraic biologist, I have a friend who is though. So I don't know how to contribute to the article in order to expand it. But I want to do so even if it seems utterly impossible with the current knowledge on the subject I possess at present. Lord Metroid 22:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep per Smerdis of Tlon. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep on the basis of the name of the conference proceedings. As a one-time biologist, Judging from the table of contents of that conference, http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at/about/conferences/ab2007/, it's about the application of logical or algebraic methods to almost anything in bioinformatics or biophysics. In this general part of biology, subjects do arise on the basis of techniques, either experimental or physical, and the boundary lines are not clear (see the art. of Biophysics for a discussion.) The importance will be judged by the work that gets done under its banner, but it is probably already enough for an article. I said weak keep rather than keep because I am not certain the name will stick. If not , it can be merged to biophysics--almost anything can.DGG 04:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep needs sources, but it is notable.--Sefringle 06:45, 24 February 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.