Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dolichyl-P-Glc:Glc1Man9GlcNAc2-PP-dolichol alpha-1,3-glucosyltransferase


 * 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   keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Dolichyl-P-Glc:Glc1Man9GlcNAc2-PP-dolichol alpha-1,3-glucosyltransferase

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Also nominated:
 * Every article in Category:Transferases and its subcats except Transferase, List of EC numbers (EC 2), Ada (protein), Fatty acid synthase, Fucosyltransferase, Glucuronosyltransferase, Glutathione S-transferase, Glycerol kinase deficiency, Glycogen branching enzyme, Glycogen synthase, Glycosyltransferase, Histone acetyltransferase, Hexosyltransferase, Myophosphorylase, Nucleotidyltransferase, Peptidyl transferase, Phosphorylase, S-adenosylmethionine synthetase enzyme, Sucrose phosphorylase, Transaminase, UDP glucuronosyltransferase 1 family, polypeptide A1, Beta adrenergic receptor kinase, Arginine:glycine amidinotransferase, DNA methyltransferase, others can be identified after consensus

This article makes no sense. The name is ridiculous, nobody would come here to look at this drivel, and even if you were able to understand what it is talking about, it doesn't actually give any information that could be useful to somebody in the biology field. Also, is every type of enzyme inherently notable?  Rcsprinter123    (message)  @ 13:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (utter)  @ 13:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This article describes a class of enzymes, as it is defined by the IUMBC. The article is a stub, and as such it contains a small amount of information. However, it's information content is sufficient to serve as a starting point for further reading. The stub contains:
 * A formal name of the enzyme that is in agreement with the IUMBC recommendations for enzyme nomenclature.
 * The unique enzyme identifier, EC number.
 * A range of alternative names, which could be encountered in the literature.
 * The reaction that the enzyme performs.
 * A set of key references
 * The links to a range of public databases.
 * The stubs about enzyme classes outline the very foundation of enzymology. It is regrettable that reading biochemical terms usually require a certain basic level of training in the field. It is hoped that in time these stubs would be expanded. Their deletion would be wrong, as it would strip Wikipedia from even the most rudimentary coverage of enzymology. --Dcirovic (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * comment* How did you get from --Probable dolichyl pyrophosphate Glc1Man9GlcNAc2 alpha-1,3-glucosyltransferase is an enzyme that in humans is encoded by the ALG8 gene.-- to rename this article as ALG8 (enzyme class)? probably implies not certain, yet you have managed to jump from uncertainty to certainty in the renaming. John lilburne (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @John lilburne This enzyme (EC 2.4.1.265) is coded in the majority of species by the gene called ALG8. Please have a look at these Uniprot records. The gene you are referring to (ALG8_HUMAN) is among them. The adjective "probable" in its name is an annotation artifact.
 * In my opinion, the IUMBC name is an adequate choice of the article name. However, referring to this enzyme class by the gene name is simpler. --Dcirovic (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete named article - I'm sorry, but I'm studying Chemistry myself (not Biochem, I'll grant you) and still struggle to make head or tail of these. This enzyme is not particularly notable, and that is obvious from the fact that it doesn't have a well-recognized shortened name. The reaction it is involved in has two chemicals that have far more complex names still; again, if they were notable, someone would've shortened it to a far easier-to-understand abbreviation or name. EC numbers don't count here. It exists, sure, but there's no way that this is remotely encyclopedic; it's just a complete mess. I don't think that nuking most of the category in one go is a good idea, because everything needs at least a very basic once-over to check if it is actually readable, or if it is saveable; however, some more definitely need to go. For example, Dolichyl-P-Glc:Man9GlcNAc2-PP-dolichol alpha-1,3-glucosyltransferase is no better, and that is one that I think should be deleted. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Disclaimer: I am a physician with a degree in Biochemistry. There are a finite number of named enzymes within the scope of human knowledge. This is one. It has been characterized and the article (though stubby) is sourced.  "The name is long and confusing" is not a reason to delete.  We have articles on many, many, many stars.  The proposition that all articles in the Category:Transferases be deleted borders on being disruptive for WP:Pointyness.  The name may not seem elegant to somebody illiterate in the language of naming complex biochemicals, but that is its name.  Maybe someday it will be renamed Viagra.  Gaff (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep all. There are two kinds of articles on Wikipedia: the kind you find by entering a name in the search-field, and the kind you go to after clicking its link in another article. This is clearly in the latter category, as most molecules with preposterously long names are also. (Whether this is the best name for the article is a clean-up detail.) It also goes without saying that "hard science" subjects such as these are, regardless of obscurity, objectively more valuable forms of knowledge worth retaining. Pax 05:59, 8 January 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.