Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bioinformetrics

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. Consensus herein is that the topic presently does not meet WP:N to qualify for a Wikipedia article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bioinformetrics

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

This neologism has no significant support in the scientific literature. I can find only two papers in Google scholar that use this term, one with very few citations and the other unpublished and uncited. Without reliable secondary sources that cover this topic in-depth, it fails WP:GNG. I tried prodding the article, but the prod was removed by an anonymous editor (who also removed the cleanup tags on the article) without comment, so here we are. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But can the material from this article be preserved somewhere else? I have read about this recently but I have to agree that it is a very new term and cannot be given an article by itself.It may be prevalent enough in the next 6/8 months for an article but not at the present. So how about putting this material in informatics as a teeny tiny mention? I am voting for delete of article but would like content preservation. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no sources beyond those mentioned by the nom. The term and the field apparently don't yet exist to any appreciable degree. If a subfield of Bioinformetrics does ever develop, then we can use reliable sources to write an article. But for now, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I found a couple sources which briefly mention the topic, but I don't think it rises to the level of extensive coverage. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Can't find any evidence that this is actually a field, as opposed to someone's idea of a good name for a field. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Interesting topic! but not enough coverage to be justifiable for a keep.--Groulsom (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2015 (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.