![]() | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 September 3. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was Keep (non-admin closure by nominator and editor who took it to DRV). Nomination withdrawn as it would appear that the majority don't agree with my arguement and it's starting to get snowy. Dpmuk (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Totally unnotable human gene. Could find no references outside scientific literature. Had removed speedy as not applicable so prodded instead. Prod was removed by author. Dpmuk (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship clearly states thatIf a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.
Thus, his argument that subjects which have received no coverage "outside [of] scientific literature" are non-notable is directly contrary to policy, which provides that significant coverage in scientific literature establishes a presumption of notability. His argument is also unsupported by practice on Wikipedia -- claims that subjects which meet the general notability guideline still aren't "notable in a wider sense"[1] are almost never levied against math, natural science, engineering, and social science articles. John254 01:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science...