Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phosphoinositide phospholipase C
- 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.
Author requested speedy deletion. --Michael Greiner 15:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Phosphoinositide phospholipase C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Essentially the article is a dwarf copy of Phospholipase C. Initially there was a suggestion for the content to be merged, however, after examining this article there appears to be nothing of value. Merely gives alternate names for the enzyme in question and lists a host of unspecified signaling systems. Wisdom89 (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a problem that can be solved by ordinary editing using the editing tools that even editors without accounts have. An administrator hitting a delete button is not required. Article merger of duplicate articles does not involve AFD, or deletion, at any stage of the process. And the process is not changed by how much overlap there is between the articles. Uncle G (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First, the AfD process is elastic where users use their judgment whether to nominate an article. You aren't citing policy, you're citing guidelines. Anyway, I've already considered all of that. With that in mind, how exactly would ordinary editing help in this instance? The entries are entirely identical so that is out of the question. Merging IS an option, but there is virtually nothing to merge. A redirect as per duplicate articles? Perhaps, but I find it highly unlikely that a casual editor or scientist would type Phosphoinositide phospholipase C. Besides, there is already a disambiguation page for Phospholipase linking to Phospholipase C. The article is essentially junk, not in the sense that it isn't notable, but because there isn't anything one could actually DO to improve it. Wisdom89 (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno. This is sort of a gray area. Mergers do not always go smoothly and it can be helpful to seek consensus, and when you have esoteric topics so much the better. That said, I'll have to look closely at both articles to see if I have anything useful to say. But I don't object to the occasional problematic merger showing up on AFD (versus, say, RFC). --Dhartung | Talk 04:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First, the AfD process is elastic where users use their judgment whether to nominate an article. You aren't citing policy, you're citing guidelines. Anyway, I've already considered all of that. With that in mind, how exactly would ordinary editing help in this instance? The entries are entirely identical so that is out of the question. Merging IS an option, but there is virtually nothing to merge. A redirect as per duplicate articles? Perhaps, but I find it highly unlikely that a casual editor or scientist would type Phosphoinositide phospholipase C. Besides, there is already a disambiguation page for Phospholipase linking to Phospholipase C. The article is essentially junk, not in the sense that it isn't notable, but because there isn't anything one could actually DO to improve it. Wisdom89 (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Enzyme classes are inherently notable and verifiable. These EC articles are eagerly awaited by the MCB community. --Arcadian (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As the sole author of this article, I've taken the liberty of merging my material into phospholipase C, which is indeed the same enzyme family. However, strictly speaking, it is only one of at least four different phospholipase C enzyme families. I've created a a disambiguation page and added a header to phospholipase C to clarify that. The page has been blanked and I've asked for a speedy delete as sole author. Willow (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is now tagged for speedy deletion. As the merger is complete, isn't better to redirect to Phospholipase C? This will close a gap in List of EC numbers (EC 3). --Banus (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry to waffle on this, but Banus' suggestion of a redirect seems best, as I think everyone will agree. I'd forgotten about our page listing all the EC numbers, so I re-created the page as a redirect. Thank you to the admins who swiftly deleted the page at my request, and I apologize for bothering you when it wasn't needed. Willow (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2007 (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.