Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channelomics


 * 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Channelomics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Withdrawn by nominator. Consensus is clear for a merge rather than deletion, which can be discussed from the article talk page separately; I'm happy with this.Klbrain (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. It conflates well-known methods used to study ion function with proteinomics and genomics; the term isn’t used with sufficient frequency to be notable. The definition is unreferenced, and I can’t find reliable sources that use it. The only evidence provided for its use are 3 listed examples, of which the first mentions the term only fleetingly in the discussion (Camerino et al, 2007; and uses a different definition to that used on the page), the second doesn’t mention it at all (Lehmann-Horn & Jurkat-Rott, 2003; did a text search on the full article), and the 3rd doesn’t mention it in the title or abstract (I can’t get to the full text). An ‘all fields’ search on pubmed gives “Your search for channelomics retrieved no results.”

Other minor points made on the page are made more comprehensively on the Ion channel Page. Alternative: merge into Ion channel Page; but my feeling is that there is little left to merge. However, my recommendation is to Delete. Klbrain (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The page needs a lot of work, but the subject passes WP:GNG rather easily. Here are results for Google Scholar, showing the term used repeatedly in peer-reviewed scientific papers (I'm not sure why the nominator got a negative result at PubMed) , and for Google Books , which even returns a 2010 book entirely devoted to the topic . That said, I would not object strongly to merging the page to Ion channel and Proteomics. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My error on the pubmed search. Not sure what happened there, but it now turns up 20 articles in total (that doesn't do a full-text search). I don't think that this is noteworthy over a 12 year period, and does rather smack of fishing for a catchy grant submission trying to catch the 'omics' wave ... call me cynical! On the google books search, the book you refer to is 30pages long from an obscure publisher with a mixed (non-specialist) output. That doesn't seem to be a notable contribution. So, I still suggest a Delete on the grounds of notability, but would be a relaxed by a merge; then await Enzymoomics, Histonomics, Lipidomics, Gproteinomics, TRKomics ... Klbrain (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sympathetic to what you are saying about all those trendy omics, but it seems to me that that becomes an IDONTLIKEIT argument. And I just realized that that book publisher, Books LLC, is a Wikipedia mirror, so let's discount that. But, even discounting the book, WP:GNG is satisfied here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hands up the to the IDONTLIKEIT argument; consider it my conflict of interest declaration! WP:GNG requires significant secondary sources; I think that the Google scholar search shows up some primary sources, so still don't agree that WP:GNG is met.Klbrain (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Here are three secondary sources:, , and , that I could find quickly; there are probably more. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And two more: and . --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree the article needs work, and I would think merge would be fine, but I have issues with some of the reasons for deleting. Proteomics does not usually involve studying the *function* of proteins. In theory it would, but generally it determines (with fabulous resolution) the identity an quantity of expressed proteins. Furthermore, proteomic analysis cannot generally capture the membrane pool of proteins (such as channels).  There are techniques where you snip off the bits of the proteins which dangle out of the membrane into the cytosol or extracellular media, but the channels within the membrane  themselves are excluded from most proteomics.  There is no other term to describe the study of ion channels other than just that "the study of ion channels" .  The study of other topics such as proteins, metabolites, inflammatory mediators are all now termed omic and there is no logical reason why some topics would be and others would not.  "omics" is now really the new "ology". Merger with channelome seems logical though.  Possibly converting this to a link to channelome and then including channelomics (the actual study of ion channels) as a subsection within that.  I would volunteer... but am just off on holiday right now!!!   (For the record, I have never used channelomics in a grant application!! ;-)  ...but I do get that sensible semi-cynical view!!  Does "channelome" itself return many hits? Is there a wikipedia entry for proteome AND proteomics? Thanks all you Wikipedians for keeping up the old quality control!! Its very important!!! Richard (user:RBJ)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RBJ (talk • contribs) 08:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge anything salvageable and redirect to ion channel, or possibly to ion channel if there's enough material for a subsection. Probably need a redirect at channelome too. This is total grant bait, but it's notable grant bait. (Note we've already got lipidomics and glycomics and kinome, and we don't seem to have GPCRome but it's used un-self-consciously in the literature.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I forgot that we also have Channelome. No way do we need both, so they should become a single article, and I'd have no problem with a merge to Channelome. Here's Google Scholar for channelome: . But – grant bait or not, notable is notable. The subject still passes GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with a Merge if that's the general feeling. The questions is, where too. Perhaps both Channelomics to Proteomics, with a view to then doing the same for Channelome ? Klbrain (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm still arguing that the subject passes GNG, and I just pointed out, above, five secondary reviews. I support merging Channelomics to Channelome, but I'd keep the resulting page. Not that it wouldn't still be badly in need of major improvement, of course. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We certainly don't need three articles on this, but I'm mostly indifferent to whether there's one or two. I suspect the channelome/omics content is better housed as a subsection in the ion channel article - which isn't too bad, but definitely isn't complete - unless it's expanded quite a bit. Meeting GNG doesn't mean it needs a standalone article. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course it doesn't mean that. But it does mean that it should not be deleted on the grounds that the subject is not notable. Aside from notability, the arguments for deletion or aggressive merging come down to subjective dislike of having a page on a subject that some editors regard as "grant bait". That's a WP:IDL argument. At this point, the discussion here seems better suited to a requested move discussion at the article talk page, rather than an article for deletion discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 27 August 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.