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 as WP:OR, WP:POVFORK. WP:NOR is not subject to consensus, and Valich's comments here indicate that the article is intended to promote novel theories. The place to discuss these would be Genetic code, but discussion there would seem to oppose a merger. Nonetheless, if anyone wants to try and merge this, the content is available on request. In the meantime, I'm creating a redirect. Sandstein 15:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universal genetic code

[edit]

This article has been written by a single author. It seems to be "original research" in the sense that it is "a synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position". In fact, the author's own words seem to assert that it is a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". On the talk page the author, Valich, says: "Radical integrative conceptual frameworks break down walls, explain phenomena, and fuel scientific growth. I hope this is the direction this article takes. It should evolve in theoretical structure, as will the field." There already exists an article appropriate for the subject, Genetic code. To be gentle, I had originally proposed the article for merger, but the consensus so far (see also comments on Talk:Genetic code) seems to be that there is little or no value in this article. Madeleine 14:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

problems with merger I wanted to note here that, since this discussion started, Valich added some content to Genetic code (presumably some sort of merger). I heavily edited it to try to fit into the stuff that was already there, and added a website reference. There were no references in the content he added, and I found two factual problems. (A) "In common molds, for example, the DNA sequence "UGA" is translated into the amino acid tryptophan. In the standard code, it's a "stop" signal." As far as I can tell, this statement is wrong. The mitochondria of molds do have this alternate genetic code, as do mycoplasma (a type of bacteria), but mold does not. (B) "However, although Crick and Watson thought that the current canonical genetic code was "frozen," many now view it as evolving in complexity toward a greater number of amino acids." Crick and Watson? They figured out DNA structure, but the genetic code had a lot of work of other people over later years. Maybe Crick said something about it, since he was a heavy theorist and involved in the observations of frame shift and the triplet nature of it, but throwing in Watson's name makes me reject this statement as nonhistorical hyperbole.

I am not willing to sift through the Universal genetic code article to figure out which parts are real and which are not. I'm afraid the article has very little to contribute; in my opinion a support for merger is effectively support for deletion unless there is someone willing to go through the article and find worthwhile parts of it. -- Madeleine 16:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the problems go further than that: Valich is trying very hard to make the case that the term "universal genetic code" is outdated, however, in doing so, she ignores that the existance of alternate codes were predicted long before the first was discovered. This means that the view of history is a bit biased as well, portraying the discovery of alternate codes as a complete surprise as opposed to the validation of a prediction already made on evolutionary grounds.

Frankly, the only way to use this article in a merge is to re-evaluate the sources. and check everything. Too many errors to use it without question. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a fork, and I'm not sure the references support it enough for it to be merged. We could do more with the Genetic code article, but I don't think this has anything to add. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge with Genetic code. There is some useful content here, including historic aspects. This article has significantly more references than Genetic code. Biophys 19:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have updated the article to clarify it, and have deleted some parts. The article provides a much more realistic evolutionary perspective of the genetic code than can be found in the genetic code article. It provides an approach with tons of insightful and important information that cannot be found on any other Wikipedia article. This is important for progress in the field and for expanding the horizons of those curious enough to delve into the subject. Somewhere we have to address the variations to the standard genetic code and the emergence of new amino acids - the 21st and 22nd, and up to 30 more now. I felt that this was the place to do it. Valich 20:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Then you need also to improve the introduction and make it shorter. Still I do not see any serious reason to have two separate articles, Universal genetic code, and Genetic code. Would not it be better to merge them and improve in the process?Biophys 20:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 21:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's quite a good article. i don't think its a POV fork, or devoted to a specific theory. I would change the title to evolution of the genetic code to make clear the fdifference in content. DGG 04:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~Delete The Universal genetic code page is the work of a sole author, one whose talk page is a bit worrying. I see concerns raised that he doesn't realize when he's citing an Intelligent Design source [1], uses citations that don't say what his text implies they do [2]. I'm a pretty mainstream biologist, and statements such as "... we have no idea what lies before us in evolutionary time and space. You cannot label something as being "universal" if it only exists on one planet, and the evidence for it being as such only exists here" [3] make me do a double-take. I think the material in the Universal genetic code page needs to be vetted by other editors familiar with the topic. It is currently insulated by being in an independent article. The subject matter in Universal genetic code belongs in Genetic code. The salvageable material can probably fit easily into Genetic code#Variations to the Standard Genetic Code without disrupting that article too much. Pete.Hurd 06:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Changed from "merge" to "delete" on basis of more recent comments by nominator et alia above. Pete.Hurd 05:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think that the article as it is should be kept due to already mentioned issues. If this is to be kept not only a new title is necessary (I wouldn't name it evolution of the genetic code as it also implies the evolution to the standard genetic code, whereas this article mainly deals with variations from the standard one), but one would also have to prune everyhing unnecessary elements, which, in my opinion, would not leave much. For an article dealing within the field of natural sciences it has to be more concise and not swarming with quotes and half quotes from abstracts of the cited articles. Honestly, I believe that it is easier to create an article on this topic de novo rather than try to disentangle the given article.CharonZ 16:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ditto the above comments for reasons to delete. If you believe there is something significant not included in the Genetic Code article - I say rewrite and include it in the Genetic Code article. Hichris 18:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I believe that Universal Genetic Code should be merged into Genetic Code. An experienced and meticulous editor should come through UGC and make sure that any significant additions and improvements that can be made to Genetic Code from UGC will be done. The article is very large, and I find it hard to believe that there is NO beneficial information that could be added to Genetic Code. Someone PLEASE carefully merge this. Thanks! WiiAlbanyGirl 02:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with madeleine's WP:OR complaint. The article is long and contains references, yes, but it's not clear that all the references are appropriate (see talk page, for instance), and length is no measure of quality or information content. In addition, the article IS arguing a POV, that deviations from the standard genetic code are somehow "significant" and constitute radical departures from the universal genetic code. This does not represent the view of anyone in the biological community, as far as I know - departures are oddities, hacks, and slight modifications, nothing more. Previous insertions into the article suggest that this argument has been advanced by the likes of Jonathan Wells, whose viewpoints are extreme fringe views, and who was quoted approvingly by User:Valich, which makes me leery of the author's motivations, as well. Graft | talk 03:25, 25 April 2007 (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.