Talk:IGFBP7 RNA editing

Speedy delete

I'm not sure what metric was used to identify this article as "blatant advertising". The article appears to address an important biological phenomena and has inline references for many of the claims. This is a new editor making quite a reasonable start, what ever happened to WP:NOBITE? The article probably should merged into IGFBP7 and the section on editing there expanded. Similar with many of the new articles, especially GABRA3 RNA Editing and GABRA3, where an extensive RNA editing section was already in place. --Paul (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, we shouldn't bite the newbies, especially ones who are making a lot more than "quite a reasonable start" - such a Wiki-savvy-constructed set of articles after just one day of registering ! I had been on Wiki for more than a year before I could come up with such well-constructed articles - I'm not sure I could do as well even now - I'm green with envy at how User:Johno430 has ridden a steep learning curve. And thank you for welcoming him Paul. You have such a close editing sympathy with this scientific area that I fully understand your very reasonable consideration for others editing in the same field, particularly brand new editors writing on the same and specific subject.

As for merger, I don't know. Wouldn't it make the merged article/s extremely long ? - are we even to merge those 9 articles from the last 7 days into a 10th ? My main worry is that I can't understand a single word of what's written - aren't we supposed to make articles accessible to the average reader, not to appeal to only the scientific professional - all the articles look like a scientific textbook that only a Phd. student would understand. From my view, this is the main objection to this and the other articles. Acabashi (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the information outlines the IGFBP7 gene, therefore this wont need to be duplicated in a merged article. You're right, the information is quite technical. Then again an article describing a gene is bound to be technical, yet important. I've heard others describe the scientific Wikipedia articles as onion skins. The basic scientific articles like RNA, Protein, gene etc. should be very accessible but as you peel layers off down to the more specific articles the content will inevitably become more technical.--Paul (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]