Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lactase persistence frequencies by population

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 as WP:OR. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lactase persistence frequencies by population

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

Copyright violation: The table is taken completely from a single PhD thesis, with only rearrangement of rows and columns. Since this is a "creative listing", it is subject to US copyright law. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not enough of an expert to judge the possible copyright violation. But the content of the article is largely from one unpublished thesis, which makes it original research. The topic is likely notable, but it needs to be written and sourced from independent reliable sources. I've never advocated deletion from WP:TNT before, but with possible copyvio and OR, this article seems to be unrecoverable without a lot of work. --Mark viking (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright law of the United States#Compilations of facts and the sweat of the brow doctrine Staszek Lem (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The University College London (the publisher of the doctoral thesis) indicates that "from the copyright perspective a doctoral thesis is an unpublished work prepared for the purposes of examination. The inclusion of extracts from copyright works may be covered by the fair dealing exception for purposes of instruction and examinations as long as it is "fair dealing"." [1] More importantly, the lactase persistence frequencies are actually from many different analyses, which are enumerated in the frequency table (pages 215-223) as well as in the bibliography (pages 193-207 [2]). Each of these analyses can instead be linked to if need be, though that does not seem particularly necessary since the work is a literature review. Soupforone (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. When a doctoral thesis is published it stops being ..er.. unpublished. Fair use doctrine applies for excerpts, not for complete pieces of information. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An additional problem with this table is that these numbers are not absolute, but rather a result of some sampling of population and therefore of questionable stability. Moreover, the data are taken from various publications and there is no guarantee they have a consistent methodology. We have already had extensive discussions about dangers of putting statistics from various sources into a single table. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete More than anything, I say "oh. my. god." I always get surprised at the labor people put into these kind of hyperdetailed lists and tables. So the problem here is that is a work of original research that is compiled here in Wikipedia, and this is not what we do here. So this is a WP:NOTJOURNAL and WP:OR thing. Maybe has a place in Wikidata. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Jytdog, for violating WP:OR. Ifnord (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2017 (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.