Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DNA Spread Theory

:{{la|DNA Spread Theory}} ([{{fullurl:DNA Spread Theory|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DNA Spread Theory}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

The phrase "DNA Spread Theory" exists so far as I can see only in this article and in the autobiographical article of its author W. Lawrence Lipton. Fails our notability criteria and is original research WP:OR. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

::W. Lawrence Lipton is also nominated for deletion--Salix (talk): 19:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. It's OR; it incomprehensible; it's a fringe theory with such tiny support as not to deserve a Wikipedia article. Looie496 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: WP:OR material on non-notable WP:FRINGE theory. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. Wait for investigation or hang on etc. Re his bio, I used to breadboard and I used an IBM 1620, which is a higher number than the 360 LOL. I also got hit in the eyelid with an exploding electrolytic capacitor while breadboarding... I too miss the days when integrated circuit pins were on .1" centers that could be easily soldered by hand... This is all interesting and maybe a few citations to an autobio published elsewhere would be interesting if notability could be established. I have already posted links to other "Creative Works" or software and this piece even lacks an indication that underlying algorithms for his analyst programs would be creative or unique.

:I have no idea what this is but nothing on scirus with all quotes removed,

:http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=dna+spread+theory+lipton&t=all&sort=0&g=s or pubmed ( quite surpsising as I expected some spurs on lipton+dna),

:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&term=lipton+dna+spread

:Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete thinking that there might be some following in Archaeoastronomy circles I searched for the first book mentioned "Path of the Serpent" and came up to 8 google hits.[http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1GGLS_en-GBGB291GB304&q="Path+of+the+Serpent"+lipton&btnG=Search&meta=] This does not look like its notable even in fringe circles.--Salix (talk): 19:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I'd prodded it earlier today. There is no mention of this theory outside Wikipedia. Fences and windows (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Do NOT Delete. One objection to this article -- which is clearly a work in prgress -- is the absence of Google hits for the term 'DNA Spread Theory'. Of note is the opening of the article which clearly states that the term is new coined. The article mentions 4600 year old DNA from Eulau Germany - it should be noted that the associated DNA test results were only recently published by Haak. Consider that the PNAS pre-publication announcement of genetic findings from a family grave dating to 1600 BCE appeared around December 11, 2008 - or only six months ago.

  Reference was made to mention of 'Path of the Serpent' and again the article indicates (possibly not clearly enough) the book did not create any waves or generate significant attention when it was released some thirty years ago - it is long out of print. However, it is an antecedent work which is augmented by data being generated through the Genographic Project (which, itself is only four years running).

  Reference is made by one contributer to the Lipton biography description of the state of computer technology at Brooklyn Technical HS circa 1958; as the individual certainly knows, there was a period in the 1960's when the IBM 360 was a state-of-art commercial processor. An article on the evolution of computer technology might well infer it was less powerful than some cellar phone capable devices. However, as to DNA Spread Theory: we are discussing a label which - in the absence of an alternative - is being utilized in association with the evolving utilization of DNA in cross-disciplinary studies of human history. Given the Eulau paper was only recently published by PNAS, it might be years before there is a hardbound publication associating the R1a Eulau family with with other R1a groups within the context of astroarchaeology -- while Wikipedia contributors can easily make that association in the context of the DNA Spread Theory article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreknangst (talk • contribs) 22:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: This isn't Nature and it isn't a late breaking papers session at a DNA conference. There simply is not enough of an organization to do peer review on original research even if that was the objective of the site sponsors. If you have synonyms of can even tenuously link it to published work that may help but this still sounds like original research. I can go back to scirus or pubmed or any other db's you care to suggest as I'm looking for new info sources myself. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

:Well, exactly. Wikipedia is not a forum for publishing new theories. Try Philica or Nature Precedings if you are having trouble getting the idea published in a peer-reviewed journal. Fences and windows (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. It reads like WP:OR, but even assuming for the sake of discussion that it could be recast as a summary of material published elsewhere (in the author's (published?) work?), there is no indication in the article, or in an independent Google searche of the theory and its author, of any reputable third party coverage of this theory at all. As such it fails the test for notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails on every level. A Sniper (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: WP:OR Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I have some sympathy as I often want to publish new stuff in various places on line. Normally, this is speculative results of immediate relevance to something like a biotech stock.I've also been interested in starting discussion of highly specialized things like extracting amino acid or base patterns from proteins or DNA and discussing them etc. It may be nice to even consider something like wiki peer review site and start a journal but that isn't the current focus. Note also that peer review is not a popularity contest and often wiki criteria are things like consensus not merit. This is ok for an encyclopedia but not original research esp since here to audience is looking for an introduction thought to be generally accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdseeksblonde (talk • contribs) 11:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, this is complete junk. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's core values. DreamGuy (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - while the theory may have some real merit, Wikipedia does not publish original or primary material, does not publicize new phrases, and the theory itself can not be verified easily. Bearian (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete Total WP:OR. Pubmed turns up absolutely nothing, thus rubbishing it as a notable scientific theory, and Google turns up jack as well, suggesting it has no weight as a fringe theory either. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

: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.