Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EPD Eukaryotic Promoter Database

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. WP:WITHDRAWN by nominator §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EPD Eukaryotic Promoter Database

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

~~Insufficient evidence of notability Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn by nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to RNA polymerase II. Changed to Keep, see my comment below. The database is mentioned in several books, a sentence here, a paragraph there. The are many papers that mention the database. But I have found no in depth coverage in RS. The topic seems to fail notability thresholds per WP:GNG. The database is verifiable in secondary sources, so the database of POL II promoters seems worth a mention in the POL II article RNA polymerase II. --Mark viking (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being myself the creator of EPD, I'm not going to make any recommendation as to whether or not to delete this article. I just would like to summarize a number of facts that may help to reach a decision. Global impact on research: Today, EPD is one of several promoter databases Among them, it is by far the oldest. It has been electronically distributed and regularly updated since 1986. As such, it had a big impact on promoter research. During the 90s, computational analysis of eukaryotic promoter sequences (in particular the development of promoter prediction algorithms) was almost exclusively based on EPD (see e.g. review by Fickett and Hatzigeorgiou 1997). At least 1000 scientific papers cite EPD as a resource without which the work described in these papers could not have been done.

EPD in the textbook literature: A large number of textbooks on bioinformatics and computational biology include a description of EPD, often under a corresponding subsection heading. Below are just a few examples:

Relative notability: Other promoter resources not necessarily more notable are covered by a Wikipedia article, for instance DBTSS and MPromDb. The latter is based on information imported from EPD (according to Wikipedia).

Merging with Article on RNA polymerase II: EPD could indeed be mentioned in this article, preferably together with other promoter databases such as DBTSS, FANTOM5 and SwissRegulon. --E1p98d6 (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is it this database? If so, the page can be kept if someone fixes it by describing the database with references (above) and providing a box, just as in MPromDb. But in present state the content is so terrible that it can only be merged. My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We rewrote the article according to suggestions made here. Rdreos (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! This is now completely different page. Keep. The database is definitely notable, as justified by cited sources. My very best wishes (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With the rewrite and new sources demonstrating historical significance and impact, I am satisfied that this topic passes notability thresholds. The rewrite also cleaned up the article. so no reason not to keep and I have changed my recommendation above. Nice work, Rdreos! --Mark viking (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has been corrected. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2014 (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.