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. Users interested in performing a merge should contact me on my talk page. --BDD (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Korean genome

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This orphan article is simply indicating that two Korean's have had their genomes sequenced but this is non-notable, as a thousand people have had their genomes sequenced (and given the sheer number of genomes that have been sequenced, including the individual details in an article like Human genome or Personal genomics would be WP:UNDUE), and there is no independent sourcing that isn't OR. Human genomes represent something of a continuum, not discreet national or ethic entities. The name carries with it the inaccurate implication that the 'Korean genome' is some distinct entity - that there is something fundamentally different about the genomes of Korean nationals, as opposed to just being human genomes that happen to be from Koreans. This is not a likely search term so no redirect is necessary, else we would have to create redirects for every national and ethnic group. Agricolae (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete : Human_genome#Genomic_variation_in_humans is where this material should go. Landmark papers like this ought to be mentioned somewhere. However the notion of "Korean genome" is silly. There may be a point in an article about genomic studies on the Korean population (e.g. [1]), but that would still not be a "Korean genome" article. -- cyclopia^speak! 13:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to merge though? The current article is about the accomplishment, who did it and where they deposited the data, not about what was learned. There may be a place somewhere for what they found out about it, but not who or how or where and that is all that is in the current article to potentially merge. While at the time it was done it was an interesting addition to the existing body of 4 genomes, it was even then, arguably, JAG (just another genome) and it certainly is now. I don't see how the specific content of this article belongs in any other page we have. Agricolae (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is some sourceable info here and there that maybe, maybe could be somewhere in human genome. That page badly needs an history paragraph, and a couple notes from this page would belong there. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I won't argue that giving human genome a historical context would be useful (although it has bigger problem right now with an editor convinced that any used of the phrase 'the human genome' biases the article in favor of 'big science'). I am just not sure that from a historical perspective, by the time you get to the fifth genome sequenced each one continues to be individually noteworthy. Agricolae (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from. But as a rule of thumb, if they get coverage in the media and are published on Nature or Science, I'd mention them for sure. -- cyclopia^speak! 18:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I get where you are coming from, but the real gauge of noteworthiness is how it is viewed in secondary sources. Do modern reviews of personal genomics find this paper worthy of specifically mention? I don't know. Agricolae (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite cited. I don't know where it is discussed at most length, but you can find quickly that it's discussed here and there, not just cited.-- cyclopia^speak! 19:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but citation doesn't quite equate with noteworthiness, because 1) when I would prepare a paper for submission, we would sometimes give a list of cites ten long for a particular point, some of which were very bad papers in extremely obscure journals, simply because a 'rule' of such manuscripts is that if you don't just cite a review, you cite absolutely everything relevant, not simply the ones you consider most important; and 2) it could be that it is being cited just for the methods, and not for the result or even the subject matter. Without looking at every paper, you can't tell. That being said, I will tentatively accept your view, but the best way to deal with including it at a place like human genome is to provide appropriate (for the page where it is going) text and the cite on that page, not to merge this page containing text that will almost certainly not be appropriate for the target. It is best done from scratch, without the merge. Agricolae (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the existing references/links are appropriate third-party sources that establish notability. This paper is relevant, but it is a primary source. The 2009 Nature paper is a primary source. There are a number of papers referring to the "Korean genome epidemiology study" (KoGES), but it is unclear if this study is related to KOREF/SJK – I suspect not. Overall, there is inadequate coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge The title of the article is misleading. There is no "Korean genome" and to suggest there is one seems almost to hint of racism, as if Koreans were a different sub-species or whatever. At the very least retitle so it's clear the topic is the event of sequencing a person's genome who happened to be from Korea. Merge to other article on the history of human genome sequencing is also fine, or delete and ignore as a minor event. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the notion of a Korean genome is not entirely silly, if you read the hook, but this ain't that article. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2013 (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.