RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome

Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome | Result: Redirected

Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Very hard to expand. ⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
2. The article was created on 20 July 2012 as two sentences (with references). The only things that have been added to it since then are a "See also", an external link and some templates. On 5 March 2017, the actual article is still just those two sentences. I think it's time to put it out of its misery. Spud (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
3. The article sucks. Kill it.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 17:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
4. I'm not opposed to short articles, but I believe this falls under hopelessly tiny stubs that have little effort poured into them. We're not supposed to fill in links for the sake of it if I recall correctly. The problem with this article that even for a stub, it conveys no meaningful information aside from two sentences of a summary on the work and it has remained as this for years. At this point, we should just wipe off clean on this one and hope for maybe a next attempt for somebody to actually pour more effort into this. In the meantime, a red link should convey more immediately that there is no information on this rather than lead our readers into a very empty article. LEFTYGREENMARIO 04:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. While currently a stub it's missional. Keep. Christopher (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

   I'm tired of seeing this damn argument over and over again that I created a page for it. See Fun:Missional fallacy.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 17:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

2. See the above. It could do with expansion, but it's definitely missional.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

   Just because a page is missional doesn't excuse it of being shit. See Fun:Missional fallacy.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 17:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Redirect to author, John C. Sanford - David Gerard (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

   Would be fine with it too if this happened instead. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

   That does sound reasonable. Spud (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

2. Agree. Bongolian (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)