Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AsdA small RNA

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. Agreement that this research has not received sufficient coverage to be considered notable. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AsdA small RNA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG no secondary sources about topic - only primary research papers. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning delete There's a certain amount of mention of "asdA" in the literature [1] but I have a hard time finding out whether that's qualitatively different from "AsdA". Most of those papers also date from earlier than the one cited in the article, which would imply different meanings. (To be fair, that article does have 6 cites itself) Overall, looks like a novel coinage that has not yet been taken up and/or discussed widely, thus probably premature. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

asdA genes are not the same as AsdA small RNA ( the name comes from antisense RNA of dnaA). This article is a part of Rfam ( non-coding RNA database) summary page and an RNA family has been created. If you think there is something wrong with the data published by Dadzie et al 2013, please let me know. I added comment to this article with a link to Uniprot page. Joanna Argasinska (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a problem with the data per se. The issue is that I have is that the data has not received coverage in secondary sources. If there is no secondary source coverage, the topic does not meet the WP:GNG. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 07:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added an Rfam infobox to make it clear that this is part of the Rfam database. Antonipetrov 11:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I suppose that might put the stub sufficiently in context, but I'm not sure. Biochem people? In any case, the added external link was a misfire - consisting only of data from the already referenced single primary source and, slightly humourously, a mirror of the Wikipedia article including AfD notice. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can't find too much enthusiasm one way or the other. Looking at the original paper's PubMed entry, we find this study, the only reference in the AfDed article, cited just three times. Looking at those, two do not mention this RNA at all, referring to more general findings of the paper. The third simply states: "To date, two antisense RNAs related to bacterial cell cycle genes have been identified: . . . . while asdnaA is expressed in stationary phase and under other stress conditions and seems to increase stability of the dnaA mRNA by an unknown mechanism." [2] [Note: asdnaA is presumably their attempt to avoid the confusion over the name given by the discoverers, but I find no evidence this alternative was ever used by anyone else]. Google Scholar has three additional cites. Two are later papers from the same research group, so not independent. The last, though, [3] is independent and gives AsdA a one-paragraph summary. It could be argued that there hasn't been much time for a 2013 finding to make its way into reviews, but that is sort of the point. Is a paragraph in a single review enough? Agricolae (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for so brilliantly summing up, and providing the depth of info Agricolae. I feel that the sources are not enough WP:SIGCOV for me. The WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources. The s on the end implies that more than 1 source providing sigcov is needed. So far I can only see sigcov in one source, and even thats disputable. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:52, 13 April 2017 (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.