Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of systems biology research groups

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 per consensus. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of systems biology research groups

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

NOT DIRECTORY. Even as individual groups, almost none of them are likely to be notable (One does have a possibly justified article, and one or two more might, but even so that does not make the while list of them notable. Inappropriate use of Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of microfluidics research groups (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of microfluidics related companies . DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is another example where a solidly acceptable list for Wikipedia is going to be questionable. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources discussing this subject as a group. Violation of WP:NOTADIRECTORY. --Randykitty (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree WP:NOTADIRECTORY as above - a possible compromise might be moving to a list of notable sysbio groups, leaving the groups with current WP articles? Entirely possible that some of the groups with pages currently are not notable either, though. --Amkilpatrick (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As others above have mentioned, WP:NOTADIRECTORY is pretty clear on this. Seems to be a place for using a category if someone really wanted to organize these rather than creating an article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2016 (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.