Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hemolithin


 * 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. KaisaL (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hemolithin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The underlying hemolithin paper has not been published in a journal yet and experts have expressed skepticism in public sources. I myself am very skeptical that the claims of the paper are true, if you are an expert, take a look at how they came up with the structure of the supposedly most ancient abiotic protein. Maneesh (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and efforts - as presented in the main article: "Although some scientists seem supportive of the study, other scientists may be less so. " - in any case - Comments Welcome here - or - on the talk page at "Talk:Hemolithin" - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * how does the molecule hemolithin meet WP:SOURCE? The paper that coined the term is unpublished and 'Unpublished materials are not considered reliable'.Maneesh (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment - yes - *entirely* agree - a better source may be preferred - and may be in process pending further peer-review at the moment - nevertheless - the initial publication - in the publication "ArXiv" - represents a published effort afaik - and, as a result, satisfies "WP:SOURCE" - nevertheless - Comments Welcome from other editors of course - iac - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers, believe me I was very excited by the headline on this, but was very disappointed when I looked closely at the work. I don't think it is a matter of a 'better' source. ArXiv can be fine (WP:RSE), but the extraordinary nature (WP:EXCEPTIONAL) of the claim here needs special attention that makes it different from, say, a well known and credible group publishing a new result in neural networks with verifiable source code etc. The existence of hemolithin would be one of the most significant discoveries wrt to the origin of life, there are no other published sources that verify the existence of that molecule. I don't think there is a single expert that could be expert enough so that their preprint could be considered sufficiently reliable for an article with such an extraordinary claim (at least, not until it had been cited affirmatively many times).  I think this makes my position clear, I'll let others chime in.Maneesh (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Draftify/userfy I appreciate the work that has been put into this article so far. This may be a case of the event being too soon for reliable secondary independent sources to develop. There are many reliable sources in the article, but they are just reporting on the announcement, parroting the PR. The discovery itself is not published; Arxiv filters out bogus submissions, but is a far cry from a peer-reviewed publication. And there are no secondary sources beyond a few shoot-from-the-hip quotes from colleagues in the field. I could believe that this will become notable after publication and secondary analysis, but for now, it may be best to park this in Draft or user space until good sources develop. I'm open to other approaches as well. -- 23:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for the time being. If it fails the peer review process, then it can be deleted. Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If as you suggest, successful peer review is required for it to be retained at some later date when the evaluation process is complete, there is no reason successful peer review shouldn't be required for it to be retained now. Agricolae (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Yeah, it's probably bunk. But it has attracted sufficient media attention to satisfy notability concerns, and does not rest entirely on the not-yet-peer-reviewed paper. The healthy skepticism of this supposed finding has been adequately covered. Once the issue settles down a bit the article will probably end up looking a bit different, but for now it shouldn't be deleted. Reyk YO! 11:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 'does not rest entirely on the not-yet-peer-reviewed paper', to be sure, hemolithin is a specific molecule that has only been proposed in the recent unreviewed paper.Maneesh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Besides any supportive comments in keeping the article made above or elsewhere, the Wikipedia "Hemolithin" article itself seems to be very popular on the internet at the moment (3,418 views on 3/4/2020 re the "Hemolithin" article - and growing currently?) - about a very popular internet topic (33,300 Google Search results on 3/5/2020 re the "Hemolithin" topic at the moment) - perhaps useful to keep the "Hemolithin" article - to help inform, as well as to help clarify any misleading informations, about the "Hemolithin" topic - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:GNG, numerous sources covering this ie. New York Post - "Scientists claim they’ve discovered the first extraterrestrial protein", Space.com - "First known extraterrestrial protein possibly spotted in meteorite ", Fox News - "Scientists claim they've discovered first extraterrestrial protein in meteorite that fell to Earth 30 years ago", Vice - "A Key Ingredient for Life Has Been Found on an ‘Extraterrestrial Source,’ Scientists Report", International Business Times - "Protein discovery in meteorite could suggest the possibility of alien existence". Coolabahapple (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify - WP:TOOSOON at best, with the coverage so far just WP:NOTNEWS that is unlikely to be enduring if it fails peer review. Agricolae (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is clearly a concept. Wikipedia is not here to prove a hypothesis is correct or not.  We only give the information.  We have articles like cold fusion and Loch Ness Monster, and we do not remove those on the basis of their reality as true technologies or organisms, respectively.  Readers are coming to Wikipedia to find out about hemolithin, and they deserve to know.  I agree there could be more sources added, but that doesn't seem to be insurmountable as a hurdle. --awkwafaba (📥) 16:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - both the discovery and its doubters have been widely reported, in depth, in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2020 (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.