Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acetylseryltyrosylseryliso...serine


 * 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   delete. Probably unhelpful as a redirect but feel free to create one.  Sandstein  06:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Acetylseryltyrosylseryliso...serine

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is about a protein name that is claimed to be one of the longest words in the English language. Information about the protein itself is already contained here. As explained here, chemical names are regarded as verbal formula, not English words. Furthermore, even if this chemical name were considered a word, this protein contains only 159 amino acids, and many proteins are orders of magnitude larger (e.g., titin which contains 34,350 amino acids) and consequently have orders of magnitude larger chemical names. The only notability that this name has is that it apparently is the largest chemical name included in the Chemical Abstracts in 1972. Boghog (talk) 06:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —Boghog (talk) 06:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Then redirect to Tobacco mosaic virus. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I even doubt that this "word" was really published in Chemical Abstracts (CA). The exact reference to CA in 1972 is still missing. People refer to Schott's Miscellany, but he doesn't give any original sources. If it was really published in Chemical Abstracts in 1972, it should be possible to give the complete reference (volume, number, page). Maybe the whole thing is an internet myth?--Biologos (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know that this is a useful redirect, unless this particular abbreviation (!) is a common one. I don't have access to the source, though, and so can't really speak to its verifiability. I'll take a closer look later on today, if I get time. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: The notability the article claims is that "It does hold the record for the longest word published in an English language publication in a serious context". Most proteins may be longer, but have never been written out.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This link (while it cannot be considered a reliable source) may at least provide some insight:
 * If this is true, then perhaps at the time when it was included in the Guinness Book of World Records, the word could be considered notable, but considering that the word has apparently been withdrawn, the word can no longer be considered notable. Boghog (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is true, then perhaps at the time when it was included in the Guinness Book of World Records, the word could be considered notable, but considering that the word has apparently been withdrawn, the word can no longer be considered notable. Boghog (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete there is an ellipsis in the title of the "name", meaning this isn't the name, and the name as shown actually could refer to trillions and trillions of different chemicals. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:04, 19 March 2010 (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.