Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computational and Statistical 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 delete. Tone 15:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Computational and Statistical Genetics

[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)

It seems to be a dupe of Bioinformatics, Computational biology, and/or Computational genomics.
The latter two are the only mainspace articles that link to it.
The text is virtually unchanged from its original writing in 2013 and requires considerable work.
Even if re-written, I don't see benefit in preserving/merging/copying/reusing the text elsewhere.
The talk page has one edit, where a reviewer appraised it as C-class.
Both the author and reviewer are retired, so I have not attempted to reach them.

We have a consensus on WikiProject Molecular Biology to delete without attempting to merge its content. --Xarm Endris (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 15:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Computational genetics and statistical genetics are somewhat overlapping but separate fields and I see no evidence in a search that "Computational and Statistical Genetics" is an interdisciplinary field notable independent of the component fields. It seems to fail notability and is an unlikely search term. Hence delete. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Mark viking above and per my post on WikiProject Mol Biol, delete IMO given the overlap with computational genomics. Amkilpatrick (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sadly not much that is high enough quality to merge into Computational genomics (mainly referencing and language issues). Normally I'd recomment just coverting to a redirect, but the title is so obscure and pageviews so low that a redirect isn't even particularly useful. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 06:20, 12 January 2022 (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.