Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaperone code

Chaperone code

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

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)

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 extravagantm 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. PainProf (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• 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)