Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shapeome

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shapeome

Prod was removed without comment now it's afd. Nn notable neologism, no Ghits for Shapeome or Shapernomics, both links as this is created point to the same site with no reference to this term Ávril ʃáη 03:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nomination.--Ávril ʃáη 03:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I may be wrong, but I think the nomination sort of counts as a deletion vote already. Regardless, it seems to fail any notability test (and the external link to the university seems to be there for show, I couldn't find a reference to "shapeome" anywhere on it with a search). BigHaz 03:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if the nom counted and can remove the vote it if it's not correct.--Ávril ʃáη 03:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete - you need to acknowledge that there is a volume a literature, applications and research in the area of stydying biological shape, form and size. The words are new and not common, however the definitions of Shapeome and Shapeomics are clear and unambiguous. By the same token, we should not accept any of the 100's of -omics and -ome terms that clearly define modern concepts in biological sciences. Please see these links: http://www.genomicglossaries.com/content/omes.asp & Resourceome.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwaterpolo (talk • contribs)

It is not that Wikipedia has to acknowledge, it is that articles have to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:Notability guidelines.--Ávril ʃáη 04:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - the fact that there are other terms ending in "omics" and "ome" is totally beside the point. None of those four links contain any reference to the word "shapeome" or "shapeomics" or any other construction designed to convey that meaning. Wikipedia exists so that concepts which are notable have articles on them, not topics which might become notable, regardless of how well-defined or logically-formed in English they might be. Unless and until evidence is provided that "shapeome" or "shapeomics" is a field of study recognised as such by reputable sources, it has no business being here. BigHaz 04:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a non-notable neologism. This reminds me too much of Connectome, from a couple weeks ago. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unheard field of science.--Ageo020 05:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete fails WP:V, WP:NEO and common sense. -- Scientizzle 05:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Michael 07:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; note that the external link is to a domain registered yesterday, which is not actually a website at all, but a redirect to the UCLA Center for Computational Biology -- a website on which the terms "shapeome" and "shapeomics" appear precisely zero times so far as I (and Google) can tell. This is not verifiable. Do feel free to come back when it is. — Haeleth Talk 10:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because it is a barbarism with no notable application. Byrgenwulf 11:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete used to be morphology when I was going to school. Dlyons493 Talk 12:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Computerjoe's talk 15:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — FireFox 21:40, 21 July '06
• Deletome is a more notable recent area of biology. Zargulon 22:27, 21 July 2006 (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.