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, with no prejudice against future re-creation if RS are produced. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bionumbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A thick slice of spam promoting a "collaborative community database of useful biological numbers" (as opposed to thoroughly useless biological numbers?) This was originally tagged for Speedy Delete, but the admin who removed the tag even acknowledged it was full of "blatant promotional sections." Fails WP:RS, too. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No particular claim of notability is shown by this page. I looked, and they didn't even know how many stripes are on a zebra. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for now. It appears to be a legit project run by a Harvard lab[1][2] and it seems to be creating some sort of a buzz based on plain google search results[3]. But as I understand it, the project is very new and was started in the Spring 2008. A more careful look at the google search result show that there is no sibstantial coverage yet by reliable sources. May well be something that will become notable soon, but not yet. Nsk92 (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It seems to be OR, by someone who has ceased to be a biologist and become a numerologist. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with a free pass to recreate after coverage in reliable sources is available. I think it might become a notable site in the future; however, I don't think the notability/verifiability criteria are met yet. —C.Fred (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on current notability.~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 16:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. They link media coverage of bioNumbers, but at present, none of these qualifies as reliable. The closest I could find elsewhere was Harvard's systems biology department page. I would expect some conference presentations in the near future, which could lead to mention in a trade journal, but for now there is no coverage we can cite. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:46, 2 October 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.