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. j⚛e decker^talk 06:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Systems Biology and Learning Machine (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)

This is an academic paper, not an encyclopaedia article. It appears to be based on a master's thesis (see redirect to this page). Peridon (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : the article appears to be a research thesis. It seems the user is here specifically to promote the author of the thesis and the thesis itself (Wikicology (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appears to be almost completely WP:OR. The fractured English doesn't help. Msnicki (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—Agree that this is WP:OR. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• --Jorge Guerra Pires (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Dear all, this is the author of the page. My intention was the best, I did not want to promote my work, besides I have been working with that. Don't you think that someone that spent time with something can talk about it? anyway, if you all decide to delete, it does not matter to me. I was just trying to contribute, that is all. Best Regards.[reply]

• --Jorge Guerra Pires (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Dear all, as some of you have commented, my page is OR, from the page of Wikipedia "...To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented..." did you all really read the article? there are several references in the end for supporting the idea. There are more, but I need time to edit or other users could complemente.[reply]
• Hm. The more I look at this the more I think it isn't OR. There are many inline citations. Msnicki and Lesser Cartographies what about this article makes you think it is primarily OR? --Pine^✉ 07:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The giveaway was in the first two sentences: "This is a short paper about Systems Biology and Machine Learning. As a matter of fact, it is pointed out herein the natural synergy between them." There's certainly a list of citations but I'm extremely skeptical that any of them actually state the basic thesis of this article. At best, this may be impermissible synthesis if not pure junk. Msnicki (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pine:: Both machine learning and systems biology are legitimate topics in isolation, but I failed to find anywhere in the primary or secondary literature where they were linked (outside of a couple mentions of molecular systems biology). The topic was, as best I can tell, invented by the author. The citations, such as they are, give examples of how machine learning is used in systems biology, but they don't discuss those techniques as a topic. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Msnicki:: Just because someone is copying their paper into a new article doesn't mean the article is a bunch of OR, although that can be the case. Relying on Lesser Cartographies' independent findings, I will say delete for now, with the possibility that the article can be recreated in a way compliant with Wikipedia policy. --Pine^✉ 07:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Does citing your own (published) thesis count as WP:OR, or WP:PRIMARY? Regardless, whilst machine learning is used in systems biology, I wouldn't think it is deserving of its own entry any more than Carpentry and Set Squares (or Carpentry and Square Sets). I would recommend writing a summary paragraph, and merging with Systems Biology. U+003F^? 08:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  U+003F, masters' theses are published, but not peer reviewed. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, but they are examined, which means that they undergo a more rigorous review than most scientific books, though less rigorous than most scientific papers. U+003F^? 13:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• the article is a clear WP:OR. The user from his statement above has also violated WP:COI policy. This is an indications that the user is only here to promote his thesis paper. We need to be careful in the use of material as U+003F suggested that it should be merged in is own WP:POV. I don't support such an idea because despite the claim of the user as the author the thesis, we cannot be certain if he his truely the author. Merging such article might be detrimental to wikipedia and the Wikimedia foundation (Wikicology (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
• If you look in the history of On the Applicability of Computational Intelligence in Transcription Network Modelling, which was an article about the author's master's thesis before it became a redirect to the article in question here, you will see that this thesis appears to be the centre of the author's editing. I feel that he may not have understood that Wikipedia does not publish scientific or philosophical papers, and that the references given in such a paper are not indicators of that paper's notability. Peridon (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Classic example of an OR essay DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR. The literature list is not enough to save this article, for two reasons. First, the article is too full of conclusions and opinions for which a master's thesis is not good enough a reference. Second, the cited literature is itself not enough to even establish the notability of this field, since the citation counts for the cited works are too low (using GScholar to measure them, which is usually quite good at finding references in CS-related fields). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm very sorry, but we don't publish original papers at Wikipedia. We're a tertiary source. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2014 (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.