Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adaptive Mutations in Bacteria: High Rate and Small Effects

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. - Mailer Diablo 05:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptive Mutations in Bacteria: High Rate and Small Effects[edit]

This is just a run-of-the-mill journal article that was published in a journal LAST MONTH. No assertion of notability. A journal article itself would have to cause a major stir for quite a while and be used as a major reference source for a long time after it was published in order to become notable. This brand-spanking-new journal article is not an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. Are we to have a new Wikipedia article for every article that a science journal publishes in every issue. I say DELETE. OfficeGirl 05:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In general, it would be better to use scientific articles as sources for Wikipedia articles on the topics they describe than to make them the subjects of Wikipedia articles of their own. --Metropolitan90 05:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an article about an article with no assertion of the topic article's importance, nor attribution of notability of the article. Having an interesting finding in an article is not by itself notability. Add the finding itself to the appropriate topic article and cite this as a source. (This is temptingly close to speedy except that it is not a type of topic that is speedy-eligible.) --Dhartung | Talk 07:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can think of very few journal articles that might be notable enough to have an encyclopedia article just about them (only historic papers, and it takes more than a month to tell if a paper is historic!), and even then I doubt it would be a good idea. For example, Watson and Crick's first paper on DNA might be notable enough, but even then wouldn't it be better to discuss it as part of a more general article about the history of the discovery of DNA? (which is more or less the way it's already done for DNA, of course) --Itub 08:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the author - I put it into the Escherichia coli article. Novickas 18:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion, create a bio article about the lead author, Lília Perfeito (aka L. Perfeito). She seems notable under the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The article received international attention [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] - probably hundreds of labs are busy trying to reproduce its results. Here is one scientific citation index that mentions the paper's importance (this goes to academic notability): [6]. It's true that WP doesn't generally have articles about journal articles per se, no matter their importance (altho there are a few under the category of genetics experiments). The findings are quite notable - it's more a question of WP article organization. Best wishes, Novickas 15:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an article about the lead author would be well received, indeed, and a valuable addition to Wikipedia. I assume you are prepared to be bold and start it up right away!OfficeGirl 15:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you agree! Problem with immediacy tho, I don't read Portugese and am short on time...Novickas 16:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could put a note with the refernces you have found on the talk page of this article's originator, who speaks Portugese. I am sure he or she would be grateful for the guidance in properly covering the information he or she was trying to share with Wikipedia.OfficeGirl 17:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, done, at User talk:Galf. Novickas 21:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in agreement with all of the above. Journal articles are not presumed notable, and this article makes no assertion otherwise. Certainly interesting, though. Someguy1221 21:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The information on this study (on my opinion) is quite interesting, at it shows bacteria adapt some 1000x faster than previosly thought. my original Idea was to incorporate this info into the bacteria article, but never couldn't quite figure out how. I'm not sure about the notability of the scientists involved, and picking one of them seemed rather unfair, so I lefts them bunched together with the study. The info is relevant IMO more even than the people who produced it. Galf 09:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look as how Novickas put the information into the Escherichia coli article. Having a Wikipedia article about this journal article just isn't the way to go. But the lead scientist has a shot at passing WP:PROFTEST and that's all the notability you need, and that provides a more sure path for you to share this very interesting information. Thanks for your hard work on this.OfficeGirl 12:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to try posting at the talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology for their suggestions. Novickas 13:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Individual journal articles shouldn't have their own entries unless they're notable in their own right. Per above, merge material into an appropriate article. --barneca (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2007 (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.