Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golgi voltage gates


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 22:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Golgi voltage gates

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This subject has absolutely no notability at all by Wikipedia's notability standards. Two references are cited. I have downloaded a copy of the paper by Cherny, Markin, and DeCoursey. It does not mention "Golgi voltage gates" anywhere. In fact, it does not mention the word "Golgi", nor either "voltage gates" or "voltage gate". The other paper is not available for free, but the abstract makes no mention of this concept, so if it is mentioned it is unlikely to be central to the paper. A Google scholar search for "Golgi voltage gates" produced nothing at all. A general Google search produced nothing at all except this Wikipedia article and pages derived from it either on Wikipedia or on other wikis. (E.g. "Articles lacking sources from December 2012" on Speedy deletion Wiki.) Thus the best we have is a single research article which may or may not mention the topic, and if it does mention it does not give it substantial enough coverage for it to be mentioned in the abstract. We certainly do not have the substantial coverage in multiple third party reliable sources that are needed to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I have also searched for other concepts referred to in the article, such as "GVG-Vesicle Co-joining Mechanism", and found nothing at all except in Wikipedia and mirrors of Wikipedia pages. The article was once nominated for speedy deletion as a hoax, and the complete impossibility of finding any mention at all anywhere of either the subject of the article or any of several concepts mentioned in the article is very surprising, and raises the possibility that the characterisation as a hoax may be correct. The article cites the paper by Cherny, Markin, and DeCourse as a source for the statement "The mechanism for the attachment of a vesicle to a Golgi Voltage Gate is known as the GVG-Vesicle Co-joining Mechanism", but that paper does not mention "GVG-Vesicle Co-joining Mechanism", nor even "GVG-Vesicle" or "Co-joining". At best we have a concept mentioned in one research paper that does not show up in Google scholar or anywhere else as far as I can make out. At worst, and in my opinion far more likely, we have a hoax. A PROD was removed by the author of the article. The article was created by a single purpose editor with no edits not related to this topic. Another single purpose editor who has also edited this article wrote on the talk page "Just because this is a fresh area of biochemical research, please don't assume its falsity." JamesBWatson (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - The full text of the nature paper also has no mention of either "Golgi voltage gates", "GVG-Vesicle Co-joining Mechanism", or "Ubiquitin-Proton Ionotropic Complex". Searches within the text for both Ubiquitin and Golgi reveal no hits at all. The paper is just about the structure and lipid interactions of a Voltage-gated potassium channel, which bears no relation to anything that's talked about in the text of our article. I strongly suspect that this is a hoax given that no reliable sources can be found for the content, and the two reliable sources cited seem not to verify anything in the article. If this is a "fresh area of biochemical research" at least show us a paper that verifies some of the content, my searches for such a paper have been fruitless. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 11:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, strange that a "fresh area of biochemical research" has a citation for its subject to a paper published 17 years ago. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - this does look like a definite hoax; the piece is short and perhaps intentionally technical-sounding; the references look vaguely plausible but turn out to be a smokescreen; the creating user is a new SPA; oh, and the user was welcomed to WP by an IP editor, also only involved here and on Ubiquitin-Proton Ionotropic complex (should also be deleted, can it be added here to this AfD please if it doesn't die by PROD), apart from welcoming another SPA user. It smells totally fishy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete There exist voltage-gated channels localized to the Golgi apparatus, for instance, the GPR89A, GPR89B, and GEF1 genes. Of these, BioGraph shows that GPR89A has annotations for both "voltage-gated" and "Golgi-associated vesicle membrane". But none of these shows any evidence of the joining mechanism in the article. I agree that the references do not verify the description in the article. Without the references, and with no evidence that I could find in either the literature or the annotations, either this research is too new to appear in the literature and WP:TOOSOON applies, or this article is a fabrication. Either way, it should be deleted. Mark viking (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - unverifiable with published sources, including those given. --Claritas § 17:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - per all above.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I looked on PubMed, Gscholar etc. and I can't find anything. Seems either a clever hoax, or a problem with language; I also tried possible misspells like ubiquitin-protein complex etc., but to no avail. The risk of a hoax/pseudoscience IMHO is too great to let this to stay for now. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:45, 16 December 2012 (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.