Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binding antibody


 * 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. No consensus about a possible redirect to neutralizing antibody, this might merit further discussion.  Sandstein  13:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Binding antibody

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I was alerted to the existence of this article by its appearing, earlier, at the Binding disambiguation page, where the description for Binding antibody made no sense to this practicing scientist, and ended with the word "possibly" (suggesting appearance by vandalism).

On reviewing the article, I found that it contained only the same one line it was created with, in 2006, a line article that largely repeated the nonsense on the disambiguation page: "A binding antibody is an antibody that has a reaction when combined with an antigen, possibly eliminating it." This line is the entire article.

The article has been edited 8 times since 2006, making no addition or change to this strange, unsourced sentence. (Edits include its tagging, since 2009, for its lacking any citations, a prior misplaced attempt to have it deleted, and additions only of categories / wikilinks.)

As to content, the reason I am pushing this matter is that the content is scientific nonsense/gibberish.

First, by definition, antibodies exist because they were generated to bind their antigens. In essence, all antibodies (immunoglobulins) are "binding antibodies;" if a protein has an immunoglobulin structure, it by definition contains an antigen binding site. Look to see if there is an article on the proposed complimentary material—"Non-binding antibody". You will not find it. This is simply because antibodies are, as a class of biological macromolecules, defined by their having been generated by random combinations of genes encoding unique antigen-binding sites (paratopes), followed by random mutations in the information encoding this hypervariable area, resulting in a binding site specifically suited to bind the antigen that led to the antibody's biosynthesis. Said, again, more simply, all antibodies, by definition, by their natures, bind their antigens. (Period.)

Hence, an article on the concept of "binding antibody" suggests a fictional classification which has no basis in sound teaching. If there is a specialist use that refers to, e.g., a subset of antibodies in a mixed antibody population that binds while the majority do not, this is abiologic and is simply a rare syntactic juxtaposition of words—possibly, how the original author came to propose the article—and so undeserving of an article. (The juxtaposed words "natural product" appear in one seventeenth century chemistry tome in reference to oxygen, as in "oxygen is a natural product of expiration", but this does not mean we create a Wikipedia article for this rarified connotation.) Any other attempt to force meaning on this sentence arrives at the same sort of ridiculousness.

Second, to anyone with any expertise, the action of the single statement article, "has a reaction…", is also so much nonsense. If by "reaction" the editor implied the Antigen-antibody interaction, then this further amplifies its self-referential and circular nature (the sentence, here substituting simple definitions): "A binding [immune system protein that binds antigens] is an [immune system protein that binds antigens] that has [an interaction between an [immune system protein that binds antigens] and its antigen] when combined with an antigen…." So much self-referential, meaningless rubbish.

Third and finally, there is no way, absent a source, to understand what the individual who indecisively entered "possibly eliminating it" intended it to convey. If the author is speaking of Antibody clearance or Therapeutic antibody elimination (a pharmacokinetic issue, ), these are not clear, and, in any case, no knowledgable individual uses this title term in the discussion of these specialist subjects. (The word pairing may be used in a diagnostic discussion, to distinguish between component parts of a complex EIA, but that is a specialist technical context, and not deserving of a WP article. But the ignominy of this word pairing is such that it does not even appear in the EIA article.)

In short, there is no way I can conceive, with doctoral training in such things, to make this article title or sentence understandable, or to see, given their nonsensical, self-referential meanings, how this article could evolve to cover any scientific content in a constructive way. This is the likely reason—no one coming to it, understanding its point—that it remains an undeveloped and unlinked article.

Bottom line from this expert, the article, through its title, creates a faux, nonsensical category, and the article itself is a single line of material without any scientific merit or strengths. 'Those of you who have the WP expertise, please, merge it with Antibody (the equivalent of deleting this nonsense), or simple find the appropriate code/reason to delete it. But do not leave it in.'This article has no place in an esteemed encyclopedia.

In following, any editors making substantive changes to the text since its 2006 creation will be pinged. Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * was the article's original author, and so is contacted so that he can explain the purpose of creating the article, and the source for where this line of information was taken.
 * is an Adminstrator that tagged the article for lacking sources, and is contacted so that he can express his opinion.
 * reverted the earlier deletion request from a non-registered editor, and is contacted so that he can express his opinion. Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the AFD and properly listed it. -- GB fan 19:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have no opinion on what should happen to to this article. I did decline a speedy deletion nomination with the rationale "[wrong information]".  There was no discussion on the talk page about any wrong information.  -- GB fan 19:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I cannot add further reasons than the very thorough rationale given above.--Rpclod (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to neutralizing antibody. This is a real distinction, e.g. this paper but one sentence is not an article, the one sentence that's here makes no sense, and the phrase "binding antibody" is meaningless outside the context of this distinction. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see from this 2002 article, that the meaning is one of the possible imaginable meanings I speculated on above; however, one old primary source barely justifies mention in the Antibody or EIA articles, it certainly cannot justify a stand-alone article. Yes? Redirect, maybe, if we can find a good sampling of secondary sources, see below. Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to neutralizing antibody; double-checked that the target handles this topic. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting point, and, and I appreciate the thought behind it. But can we provide good secondary sources that indicate that this word-pairing is synonymous with neutralizing antibody?  I did a stint while in pharma remediating HIV detection products for the diagnostic unit of the company that had come under FDA scrutiny, and so am well enough versed on multiple antibody/neutralizing antibody/blocking antibody uses in EIA test designs. I am just aware of no literature that uses this "binding antibody" language. But my opinion does not matter; what do the sources say?  Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not synonymous, just related. "Binding antibodies" are the ones that bind but don't neutralize (but apparently initiate other immune processes, see ). See also, , , etc. This one: is a review that discusses the point. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I grant that in some papers, it is convenient to use the title term to differentiate the roles being played by a subset of added antibodies, in a particular experimental or assay design. However, the remaining antibodies at use in those papers are still "binding," and so elevating this term to general and encyclopedic is problematic, I think. I still am in favor of deleting, given the concept's lack of editorial attention for years, and the lack of good secondary sources to support it. (I can't support redirect, because this one Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz) review,, does not elevate the term to standard, especially since the uses in the primary sources you give are diverse, and specific to each article.)
 * The term seems to be primarily used in two distinct fields, HIV and modulating immune responses to biologics (mostly interferon beta used in MS), but with identical meaning. Redirects are navigational tools; the question is whether someone might plausibly be searching for the term and what they'd expect to find. Stacks of secondary sources for a redirect are not necessary given evidence that it's a plausible search term. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - I respect the redirect opinions, but (1) have not seen good secondary sourcing to make clear that this is a preponderant usage, and so a solid textbook/encyclopedic concept, versus a stray usage, or word juxtaposition case, and (2) am aware but am not persuaded that the concept rises to becoming notable and textbook/encyclopedic, based on the few primary sources, wherein nomenclature (and abbreviations) can be developed as necessary just for use in those articles (without becoming general).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Nothing to add - from the date I suggest I was pre-admin gnoming (had I had the flags, I might have deleted it immediately). LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2015 (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.