Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electromics

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. ✗plicit 23:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Electromics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Electromics

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Nonsensical unsourced technobabble. Not a real thing that exists in reality. Captain Hindsight (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article does include references, but the first one is to a journal from a publisher that might be considered predatory. The second reference appears to be from a legitimate journal (no Wikipedia article on the journal, but one on the publisher). Googling "Electromics" brings up a lot of instances of "electronics" being misspelled. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Instances of the misspellings (typographical errors) of electronics are commonplace and are readily found by Google. Given the importance of electronics as a discipline and as an industry in modern life, this is not surprising. Aguiseppi (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only the first reference uses the term, and anyone can start a new word. We need evidence that it's caught on before we can have an article. I suspect this word won't catch on because it's not a logical extension of the 'omics family. Genomics is about looking at genes, proteomics about looking at proteins, and either can be done on subsets of organisms subjected to particular treatments, such as exposure to electric fields. Gene expression may well be changed by electric fields, but this would be an application of transcriptomics, not a new 'omics. At the very least, this is too soon, and it's more likely misguided. Elemimele (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the few citations provided indicate, this type of work has been ongoing for some considerable time. While the term and its definition were introduced in the cited 2023 paper, with the view to providing coherence to this field of study, the practiced art is clearly not new.

A parallel emerging terminology is “Electrogenetics” – the combination of electronics and genetics. See this citation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2022.102151 Aguiseppi (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not promote new terminology for established fields. If the terminology is good, it will be successful, and we can write about it then; not before. XOR'easter (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as COI/promotion of a non-notable neologism. (The first reference says explicitly, Here, a new term is defined, electromics.) Article was created by user account Aguiseppi, last author of first reference is Anthony Guiseppi-Elie. Article should not exist and should never have existed. XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the article Anthony Guiseppi-Elie needs a fluff-ectomy. XOR'easter (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why link these engagements? Aguiseppi (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took a crack at it, not really much that could be sourced or was really of anything WP:DUE, so it's stubified. Tempted to PROD it, but I haven't dug too deep yet on if they do actually meet notability since the fluff made extra work on that front. KoA (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the few citations provided indicate, this type of work has been ongoing for some considerable time. While the term and its definition were introduced in the 2023 paper, with the view to providing coherence to this field of study, the practiced art is clearly not new and is well documented. Aguiseppi (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by this position. User is an open, active contributor whose identity is known and not hidden behind a pseudonym. If author does not create the article, then who? Author has cited supporting literature sources broadly. Aguiseppi (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the term is broadly viewed as a term seeing wider use, someone else will create the article, as has been done with all the other articles on Wikipedia. It is highly recommended you do not contribute to articles where you may have a conflict of interest, including writing about your own work, as it appears you do here. Tollens (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a pretty straightforward WP:NEOLOGISM case even outside of the COI concerns. KoA (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. This is an important are of legitimate scientific inquiry and practice that has been ongoing for many years but without a common definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguiseppi (talk • contribs) 13:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC) — Aguiseppi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Most of the very small number of Google scholar hits for "electromics" combined with "gene," "biology," etc. involve misspellings of "electronic." The handful of papers that actually use it in the sense put forth by this article are almost all authored by the same person. Maybe the term will catch on one day, at which point it would certainly be appropriate to have a Wikipedia page on it. But at the moment, it's a textbook case of WP:NEOLOGISM. --Tserton (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2023 (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.