* There is absolutely no cause to be patronizing and insulting. This can happen when a recipient becomes uncomfortable holding his/her position but does not want to admit it. How do you know that other users of Wikipedia would not be interested?  By deleting the section from Wikipedia without even mentioning it in the location of the redirect you have effectively eliminated any possibility of finding out? Are you also going to fix the "error" in Wiktionary, to make sure that this "error" is not propogated?  

 I tried your suggested exercise replacing "phenome" or "phenomics" with "phenotypes" and got the following non-sequiturs: 

 The biological coherence of human phenotypes databases 

 Entity/quality-based logical definitions for the human skeletal phenotypes using PATO 

 Systematic phenotypes analysis of Escherichia coli multiple-knockout mutants reveals hidden reactions in central carbon metabolism 

 From the genome to the phenotypes and back 

 An integrative network approach to map the transcriptome to the phenotypes 

 Phenotypes analysis in plant species using loss-of-function and gain-of-function mutants 

 What new cell biology findings could bring to therapeutics: is it time for a phenotypes-project in Toxoplasma gondii 

 Colloquium papers: Numbering the hairs on our heads: the shared challenge and promise of phenotypes 

 While a few of them might be manipulated further to work, they all take away from the actual meaning that the author intended.   

 I see that phenomics is also now redirected to phenotype.  This is an even bigger stretch, I think.  According to Wikipedia, "Synonyms are different words with identical or very similar meanings".   The meanings intended by authors who use the terms "phenome" or "phenomics" are most often not the same as phenotype or phenotypes. 

 I am at a complete loss to understand the logic of your position on this matter.