Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protein-DNA interaction site predictor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Steel1943 (talk | contribs) at 23:14, 5 July 2016 (Fix link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 23:14, 5 July 2016 by Steel1943 (talk | contribs) (Fix link)
- 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 keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Removing afd tag; closed as keep[reply]
- Protein-DNA interaction site predictor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Ignoring the state of the article, I really don't think we need separate articles down to this level of detail. Completely unsourced, and from the tone I wouldn't be that surprised if it's been cut-and-pasted from a textbook — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Doesn't seem the least detailed to me-- over-general if anything, and and could be used as a start at a more thorough overview of the topic. I don't think these are in the textbooks yet--it sounds more like class notes & easy to rewrite if necessary We also might need articles on the individual programs mentioned. GS returns at least 10 hits for BindN, 18 for DP Bind, only 2 for DISPLAR, though it is a related program. There were already 3 good inline refs to the university web pages for these programs--I moved them to external sites, and from them I found the formal literature refs, which I put in. Good to work on some molecular biology for a change. DGG 03:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with DGG - needs more detail if anything. Think outside the box 12:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- There is a similar article on Protein-protein interaction prediction which is just about as bad. I think they should be combined into a single article on biochemical interaction prediction which could then be expanded into something substantial. Mangoe 15:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)I bow to the opinions of others. Mangoe 00:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Provides useful information. No merging with Protein-protein interaction prediction. These are very different things.Biophys 23:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Needs wikification. Do not merge with protein-protein interaction prediction; that is an entirely separate process. Axl 21:46, 12 May 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.