English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Genetic memory (biology)
- 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. Sandstein 18:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Genetic memory (biology)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Genetic memory (biology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article mentions several aspects of genetics and "Lamarckian" inheritance, but attempts to synthesize these with a brief uncited introduction into the pseudoscience topic named in the article title. Sources exist, therefore, for the subtopics, but no reliable scientific source (such as a systematic review article) exists for the topic as a whole. The article should therefore be deleted as Original Research. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- The real scientific version of this is at Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. Natureium (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Natureium: Not exactly: that is one aspect, and it's genuine science, but not a synonym for "genetic memory"; there are other examples listed in the article. What the article is trying to do is to tie all the different bits of real but disparate science together into one non-scientific domain. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as fringey synthesis. XOR'easter (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- rename and cleanup: calling for deletion of flawed articles is lazy. Btw, I do not think this is "fringey synthesis" in origin, it seems that this goes back to my splitting off various off-topic "biological" material from the article on genetic memory proper. I think the proper approach here would be to rename to somatic memory (which appears to be a bona fide term) and prune any material that doesn't relate to that topic. --dab (𒁳) 05:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- That would be yet another subject, not a synonym. The synthesis, if such it is, would have preceded your splitting; the material should I think have been deleted rather than split off, but that was surely at the time an easy mistake to make, given there was technical-looking material in an article about something else. On laziness, that is a forbidden personal attack; it's also false, as I investigated the matter carefully, and having written several articles on related topics (like Lamarckism and Orthogenesis...) I'm familiar with the area and its fringiness. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- I do not think I made a mistake: I did split off the material as useless crap. It's just that my view of "deletion" is different: Instead of throwing out everything, you should just blank the material that is useless and retain the stuff that is relevant. The useless material can always remain in the edit history so people can review it and perhaps rescue tidbits that are useful after all. And come on, I did not "attack you personally", I voiced a general opinion of how to approach editing broken articles. Do tone down the belligerence, nobody is attacking you, this isn't even remotely a content dispute, I am sure we agree on pretty much everything regarding Lamarckism etc., I am just giving my view on how to approach cases such as this as a task of copyediting. --dab (𒁳) 11:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well if we're agreed it's "useless crap" then deletion is the right answer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- I do not think I made a mistake: I did split off the material as useless crap. It's just that my view of "deletion" is different: Instead of throwing out everything, you should just blank the material that is useless and retain the stuff that is relevant. The useless material can always remain in the edit history so people can review it and perhaps rescue tidbits that are useful after all. And come on, I did not "attack you personally", I voiced a general opinion of how to approach editing broken articles. Do tone down the belligerence, nobody is attacking you, this isn't even remotely a content dispute, I am sure we agree on pretty much everything regarding Lamarckism etc., I am just giving my view on how to approach cases such as this as a task of copyediting. --dab (𒁳) 11:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- That would be yet another subject, not a synonym. The synthesis, if such it is, would have preceded your splitting; the material should I think have been deleted rather than split off, but that was surely at the time an easy mistake to make, given there was technical-looking material in an article about something else. On laziness, that is a forbidden personal attack; it's also false, as I investigated the matter carefully, and having written several articles on related topics (like Lamarckism and Orthogenesis...) I'm familiar with the area and its fringiness. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete There are subtopics backed by reliable sources, e.g., epigenetic memory is a well-established set of concepts. Epigenetics plays a role in memory formation, see Epigenetics in learning and memory. Epigenetic state can be inheritable, see Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. Some believe it plays a role in evolution, see Contribution of epigenetic modifications to evolution. DNA can be used as a memory storage device, see DNA digital data storage and E. coli for that matter. But I was unable to find any reliable sources in biology that discuss these and other subtopics under the umbrella term of genetic memory. In order to be viable, a general overview article like needs reliable sourcing that provides such overviews--books or review articles on genetic memory. Without such, this article is original research through synthesis and should be deleted. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}18:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- 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.