Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metabarcoding

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 speedy keep. Nom withdrawn, and no other objections. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metabarcoding

[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)

I don't see how this article is different enough from Sequence database to have its own article. Its a DNA encyclopaedia. Could someone with more knowledge confirm If I'm right. Daiyusha (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - It seems there is enough info to get a standalone article. There is probably no need for this debate to go forward. Daiyusha (talk) 05:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Epipelagic: for tweaking the article. Would you still consider it needing a separate article when DNA barcoding contains a big section about DNA metabarcoding Daiyusha (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes metabarcoding warrants its own article. Roughly, metabarcoding is to ecology as barcoding is to biology. Apart from DNA metabarcoding, there is eDNA metabarcoding, RNA metabarcoding and eRNA metabarcoding. Metabarcoding is an emerging field in its own right, likely to have a large impact on conservation and diversity science, as well as being a powerful tool for microbial ecology. When I get time I'll expand the article a bit. — Epipelagic (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Metabarcoding involves the high-throughput sequencing of DNA and/or RNA in bulk collections involving more than one species. Genetic fragments can be identified by matching their barcode signatures with information already held on sequence databases. The lead in the article needs rewriting since it confuses metabarcoding, which is a process, by identifying it with the reference sequence databases themselves. The article would be an overview for an area rapidly expanding in scope, and could also refer the reader to existing coverage on Wikipedia, such as at DNA metabarcoding and eDNA metabarcoding. — Epipelagic (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the lead — Epipelagic (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Epipelagic. The term produces 1000s of hits in Google Scholar. Esculenta (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 5 February 2021 (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.