Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ketoglutaric acid and Alzheimer's disease


 * 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 This is an article on a technical subject few Wikipedians can be expected to understand, but I believe the majority got it right in this case. Not only does a separate article give undue emphasis to one portion of the biochemistry of Alzheimer's, it doesn't even provide a description which is understandable to reasonably intelligent non-experts -- like me. I am willing, upon request, to recreate this article in userspace for the specific purpose of merging its contents into another existing article. BTW, when I looked at the article Abductive pointed to below, I found it tagged as a PROD; I removed that tag to force an extended debate over that article. The problem with subjects like these is that we non-experts are forced to rely, perhaps too far & with too much trust, on the word of experts: we need to be educated so we can spot these problems & intelligently resolve them on our own. -- llywrch (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ketoglutaric acid and Alzheimer's disease

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Appears to be an incomplete essay, not clear why this should be the topic of an encyclopaedia article, especially as ketoglutaric acid or keotglutamate don't merit a mention in Alzheimer's disease or Biochemistry of Alzheimer's disease. The creator seems to be developing a longer original "research paper" version in their own user space, leading me to that this was intended to be in the same vein. Pontificalibus (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Move into the userspace page and delete; point editor to OR and RS policies. –SJ +  18:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not OR. See the link below. Anarchangel (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as OR. Userspace version should also be deleted; Wikipedia is not a webspace provider, publisher of original thought, or scientific journal. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Scientific journal" appears, in a way, in NOT. However, it appears as a reason for inclusion, not exclusion: "If you have completed primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues, such as PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS". Anarchangel (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 *  Speedy Keep ((I missed the link to Essay, but I show that is not true, see the link)) Please do not vote on things that you do not understand. I am flabbergasted that nom should consider the inclusion in Wikipedia articles to be the defining limit of scientific understanding on an important medical topic. The first paragraph agrees in every detail (the points shown more or less in reverse order, ie the article mentions mitochondrial dysfunction first and then α-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase role) with Pharmacological mechanisms in Alzheimer's therapeutics A. Claudio Cuello, page 196. Anarchangel (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am actually a biochemist who thinks that we are trying to write an encyclopaedia rather than A Description of the World's Scientific Research, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume my nomination originates from a position of ignorance. Yes, of course other Wikipedia articles aren't the "defining limit of scientific understanding" - but our scope does not reach out to the "defining limit of scientific understanding". We need to consider what the "defining limit" an encyclopaedia's coverage is. The article falls outside it. --Pontificalibus  (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your limitation of WP articles to the content of other WP articles dumbs WP down; that seemed an awful lot like the actions of someone dumb. Now I find that you ought to know better, but still want to dumb WP down. WP is lacking in contributions from a solid science background; we need well-schooled deletionism like a hole in the head. But enough of this assertion and contradiction; it is time to show your hand. I don't think you have anything. Set up your rationales according to any WP rule you choose, and I will knock them down, as I have your claim that it is an Essay. Anarchangel (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't about deletionism, it's about giving subjects appropriate coverage. What is the content of this article? It has some information about Alpha-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase and some generic info about Alzheimer's disease - the only part of this article that is actually about Ketoglutaric acid and Alzheimer's disease is the section entitled "Studies". I can see why the research mentioned here might merit a mention in Alpha-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase or Biochemistry of Alzheimer's disease but it would be giving it undue weight to devote an entire seperate article to it. On finding a separate article devoted to the subject, people might think that there was a significant connection between Ketoglutaric acid and Alzheimer's disease, when in fact we simply have, to quote the article, some preliminary research indicating "α-KGDHC may be involved in AD pathogenesis through increased mitochondrial oxidative stress, making it an interesting research target". As I said previously, this is an encyclopaedia - we're meant to help people access information, not confuse them by presenting them with entire articles on every piece of scientific research ever conducted. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone might be confused by your reframing of deletionism as appropriate coverage, or your conflation of reader's assumptions with assertions of undue weight, too, but Wikipedia's rules for deletion are not based on what errors its readers might make. Anarchangel (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge/delete. This is not how we organize encyclopedic content. The page could be moved to Pathophysiology of Alzheimer's disease Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - I have to agree with Anarchangel.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is either original research or much too detailed coverage of a particular aspect of this disease's biochemical nature; research at this level of detail is impenetrable to the layperson and belongs in a research paper, not in a general purpose encyclopedia. The fact that this substance may have some relevance with respect to Alzheimer's disease can be mentioned in a relevant article if it is reliably sourced.   Sandstein   06:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. the article has reliable sources. Is written in a good way. "Much too detailed" shouldnt be a reason for delete. Isnt that a positive thing?:)--BabbaQ (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a Content Fork, and stinks of Original Research. There is also an article The α-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase complex in Alzheimer’s Disease along this same vein. Users who wish to advance their research on Wikipedia should seek consensus to add this dubious material to Biochemistry of Alzheimer's disease. Abductive  (reasoning) 10:33, 4 April 2011 (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.