Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Biology

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Biology. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Biology|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Biology. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Biology/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Biology

PageRank algorithm in biochemistry

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

Most of the content on this page is redundant to material on PageRank, including a confusing and incomplete explanation of how PageRank works. It also hasn't had any meaningful updates since 2014. I get the impression that some people suggested applying PageRank to biochemistry but it wasn't widely accepted. I also question if the original page creator, which has only edited this article, was associated with any authors of the referenced papers.

I don't think the potential applications of PageRank to biochemistry are notable enough for its own page. I did suggest a merge at Talk:PageRank § Merge PageRank algorithm in biochemistry but it was inconclusive and somebody suggested I AfD it instead, so here we are. Apocheir (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Internet. Apocheir (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A basic google search has a large number of scholarly publications on the applications of the PageRank algorithm that are specific to biochemistry. It clearly is a topic that passes WP:SIGCOV. Any issues of redundancy or poor explanation can be solved through editing, but I definitely think that it is a reasonable WP:Content fork in this instance.4meter4 (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TNT anyway. Most of the references don't refer to PageRank or are deceased. The article as it stands is a barely-comprehensible summary of a single, very narrow application within biochemistry, and doesn't fulfill the promise of its title. It's possible someone could write an article based on 4meter4's search, but they'd have to start from scratch and almost nothing in the existing article would be of any use to them. This is a classic example of the Wikipedia articlee driven by someone's understandable excitement about a single primary literature reference. Elemimele (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources I could find are primary, and all sources cited in the article are either primary or irrelevant (except ref. 4), mostly dating from right before this article's creation. There is no WP:LASTING coverage that we would expect from a notable topic; like Elemimele said, all signs point to someone creating an article about a topic they thought would turn out to be important, only to abandon it. People think up new computational tricks every single day, and many of them end up published; most are forgotten as technology and data evolve. We don't need to immortalize them all. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The content of the article reads like an essay and contains speculative claims (e.g. "A PageRank-based algorithm could identify important protein targets ...") which are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Someone did a "basic Google search" above and found lots of WP: GOOGLEHITS, but that's sloppy work. They didn't actually identify any specific sources. And, even if someone comes forth with sources, cleaning this article up would amount to blanking the page, so WP: TNT applies here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dihydroxyphenylalanine ammonia-lyase

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

Quoth the KEGG database entry: Deleted entry: dihydroxyphenylalanine ammonia-lyase. The entry had been drafted on the basis of a single abstract that did not provide experimental evidence of the enzyme-catalysed reaction Translated in Wikipedia terms, this doesn't meet WP:GNG. Looking at Google Scholar for entries on this enzyme likewise doesn't show any substantial results. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An enzyme removed from the IUBMB list might be worth retaining if there had been plenty of discussion of it before it was removed. However, that is not the case here. It was deleted from the enzyme list as long ago as 2007. Athel cb (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and burn the leftover electrons. "Dihydroxyphenylalanine ammonia-lyase...is a non-existent enzyme that catalyzes the reaction..." So the article is self-refuting; if the enzyme doesn't exist, it can't very well do anything. The one cited reference doesn't mention this hypothetical enzyme. Nonexistent or hypothetical substances can be notable if they're the subject of serious study (e.g. Room-temperature superconductor) or a significant part of a work of fiction (e.g. Mithril) but elf-armor this ain't. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its certainly not impossible that such an enzyme could exist. Its just that we can't currently prove that it does with WP:RS. If we covered theoretical enzymes, there could theoretically be an enzyme that catalyzed almost any reaction in the universe, but it doesn't mean that such an enzyme exists on Earth or ever will. There could theoretically be an enzyme that does my taxes for me, but that seems pretty far fetched now doesn't it, and absent sufficient RS on point, not something we would cover. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's not impossible that such an enzyme could exist. It's even plausible, but at the moment there is no information. If it's discovered, an article will be appropriate. Until then ... Athel cb (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biology proposed deletions

Biopôle (via WP:PROD on 12 September 2023)