Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaperone code
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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 keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Chaperone code (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)
This article claims that its subject "has been identified as one of the main regulatory mechanisms underlying cell function in biology". In support of this extravagant claim, it cites two papers from 2013. One has been cited 57 times; the other has been cited 131 times. "Chaperone code" gets a grand total of six hits at PubMed. In light of this, I have a very hard time believing that this article is verifiable or even substantially true. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps also worth noting that both the papers cited are co-authored by the same person, who by the looks of it also wrote this article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete As written, the article text is largely uninformative, reading like the hype section of a lab website. Like the nominator, I have been unable to find evidence that "chaperone code" is a generally established term. The idea appears to have been legitimately published, but it does not meet the standards for having an article. XOR'easter (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Delete As per XOR'easter. Seems to lack significant independant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)- Keep Given the additional sources found by PainProf. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Delete per WP:OR. The claims are extravagant but there's been no coverage.I teach genetics and never heard of this. Bearian (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)- Keep In contrast to the above, these are not extravagant or incorrect claims overall. I wrote a whole deletion rationale and then I double checked I PMC after having a thought about Pubmeds weaknesses for concept searches. I found two review papers directly addressing the subject in these terms in JBC (so a reliable journal IMO) published very recently August and July, which have this as the subject by two completely different research groups (and independent from the first group). This indicates significant coverage in reliable sources. [1] [2] PainProf (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Nitika; Porter, Corey M.; Truman, Andrew W.; Truttmann, Matthias C. (2020-07-31). "Post-translational modifications of Hsp70 family proteins: Expanding the chaperone code". The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 295 (31): 10689–10708. doi:10.1074/jbc.REV120.011666. ISSN 0021-9258. PMC 7397107. PMID 32518165.
- ^ Backe, Sarah J.; Sager, Rebecca A.; Woodford, Mark R.; Makedon, Alan M.; Mollapour, Mehdi (2020-08-07). "Post-translational modifications of Hsp90 and translating the chaperone code". The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 295 (32): 11099–11117. doi:10.1074/jbc.REV120.011833. ISSN 0021-9258. PMC 7415980. PMID 32527727.
- Keep per WP:HEY by @PainProf. Not withdrawing this nom because there seems no consensus as yet on WP:N/WP:V issues, but I'm convinced by PainProf's work that this is a notable and verifiable concept. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Bearian and XOR'easter: Would either of you consider the delete vote, I'm not sure if there is a consensus for keep yet. PainProf (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep
and merge to Chaperone (protein). One needs a review article to justify this page, and there was one, in TIBS: [1] Cracking the Chaperone Code: Cellular Roles for Hsp70 Phosphorylation (2017). But I doubt that we need the separate page because the number of publications on the "Chaperone code" is very limited (two above, this review + one more [2]). Perhaps the content would be better served by creating an additional subsection in Chaperone (protein) named "Post-translational modifications" and placing this content there.My very best wishes (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Personally I think merging isn't a good idea, there is a lot more content that should be covered, at the very least core mechanisms such as ADP ribosylation, Acetylation, Ampylation, Thioloxidation and ubiquitination which I plan to add later, probs better to have a shorter paragraph at chaperone and a link to a main article to avoid a crazy amount on this to the detriment of an article which is a bit lacking in other important aspects of chaperones. Those JBC articles are reviews... and the original paper coining the phrase was also a review together encompassing large numbers of publications. A bit similar to merging histone PTMs to histone. We could rename to Chaperone Post translational modifications and keep this bolded. PainProf (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- OK, keeping it a separate page is also definitely an option. My very best wishes (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Personally I think merging isn't a good idea, there is a lot more content that should be covered, at the very least core mechanisms such as ADP ribosylation, Acetylation, Ampylation, Thioloxidation and ubiquitination which I plan to add later, probs better to have a shorter paragraph at chaperone and a link to a main article to avoid a crazy amount on this to the detriment of an article which is a bit lacking in other important aspects of chaperones. Those JBC articles are reviews... and the original paper coining the phrase was also a review together encompassing large numbers of publications. A bit similar to merging histone PTMs to histone. We could rename to Chaperone Post translational modifications and keep this bolded. PainProf (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would have liked to see 1 or 2 more keeps (and/or withdrawn delete !votes) before actually closing this as keep which seems the general direction after PainProf's work.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Would have liked to see 1 or 2 more keeps (and/or withdrawn delete !votes) before actually closing this as keep which seems the general direction after PainProf's work.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- 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.