Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occurrence-in-subtuple problem

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. MBisanz ^talk 04:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Occurrence-in-subtuple problem

Contested prod. Unsourced, orphaned, badly written article containing an OR derivation of a trivial formula. Delete and Transwiki to Wikibooks; maybe they have a use for it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR and no indication of WP:NOTABILITY (which would require some sources to establish). No scholar hits. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is of course one of those cases where the problem could go by different names, so google could miss it if you use the exact title of the article. I'd like to try to find out if it's on French Wikipedia or the like under some other name. Obviously the person who wrote it is not a native speaker of English, so it's plausible that he or she would have put in elsewhere first. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've sent an email to the original author of the article inquiring about scholarly sources and Wikipedia articles in other languages. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Silly rabbit. Could revise my opinion if reliable sources are provided to demonstrate this problem is not OR and is notable. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. (If the author responds, I would merge with regulation of gene expression because it's not really used for anything else). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has responded. He may cite some source within the article sometime soon, but I'm not clear about details. I see a distinct possibility that (1) this article may get deleted on the grounds that it's probably original research and then (2) a few months from now fully refereed sources will be there to get cited and the article will be recreated. If that happens, I'd guess the thing to do would be to restore the edit history. Are there precedents? Michael Hardy (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you want poor content like this to weigh down the regulation of gene expression article? Narayanese (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider this poor content? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2008 (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.