Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bivalent (genetics)

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The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Inks.LWC (talk) 08:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bivalent (genetics)[edit]

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

The article contains strings of copyrighted text (compare the text at "(a.) Chromosome pairing" with the entry for the "Pairing" glossary entry (in the shaded box, here) and close paraphrases (compare the sentence starting "By late leptotene" with the sentence "At late leptotene" here) ~~Additionally, there is a content fork issue as it is a synonym to Tetrad (genetics), merge would have been recommended in not for the copyright issues.~~Novangelis (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tetrad (genetics) appears to be unrelated to this article; it is about yeast tetrads. Perhaps you meant Tetrad (chromosomal pairing), which redirects at the tetrad disambiguation page to the Meiosis article? I agree that there are copyvio issues--the strings of copyrighted text should be deleted. Mark viking (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I goofed. That was not a fork. Chalk this one up to laziness. When I though I had found a basis not to go through the entire article to track down the source texts, I leaped upon the opportunity without sufficient examination. Another shorter article by the same author, containing some identical text to this one, was just deleted for copyright violation at my prompting. In addition to the above listed text, the paragraph starting "The telomere bouquet" is found at the bottom of page 108, here. If I continue to search, I suspect that there will be nothing left when copyrighted material is removed. Even if I or someone else does not perform the search, I think the multiple segments of copyrighted material make everything suspect. For that reason, I am still recommending deletion on the basis of copyright violation alone.Novangelis (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just restore to this pre-COPYVIO version, intermediate edits are made almost exclusively by editor who seems to regularly copy-paste. Would have done so myself but it would remove the AfD notice Jebus989 ^✰ 20:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The version listed above does look to be clear of copyvio issues. Other than numerous mirrors, I could not find significant text matches. I concur with the recommendation to restore, and would like to withdraw my recommendation for deletion.Novangelis (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2013 (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.