Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serpentine receptor


 * 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   redirect to G protein-coupled receptor. Cirt (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Serpentine receptor

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This page consists of an unsourced (the one link is dead) definition of a colloquial term for a scientific concept. The page fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The material in the page simply duplicates (with multiple factual errors) information that is provided in much greater detail at Receptor (biochemistry). I have done Google and PubMed searches on the term, and they reveal that it is used in passing by multiple sources, but it does not seem notable enough to merit a definition page here; rather, a definition could be included at Receptor (biochemistry). Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. It's in the standard biochemistry textbook, Lehninger, referred to there multiple times.   . 740 articles in Google Scholar  -- there are certainly plenty of references to add.  It's true the present article says nothing more than is in the general article, and uses only a  source that seems unavailable, but that does not mean the topic is non-notable.     DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I don't disagree with what you say about its use. But–what would you expand in this page, that wouldn't better go in Receptor (biochemistry) or G protein-coupled receptor? Please note that the sources you cited are using "serpentine" as a synonym for other terms for which we also have pages, pages that are much better developed. There is simply nothing that could be said about this usage, that could not be better said about the same receptors, under their more generally-accepted names. (To illustrate what I mean in non-scientific terms, we have editor, but we don't have person who edits in addition to it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect Synonym for 7TM receptor. All the details in the article are wrong, so don't don't merge or keep anything. Narayanese (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify: G protein-coupled receptor as target. Narayanese (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to GPCR per Narayanese. In theory, there could be serpentine receptors (SRs) which are not G protein-coupled in which case the article in question would be notable.  However by searching Google, Pfam, and InterPro, I cannot find any evidence of non-G protein-coupled SRs.  Hence the term "serpentine receptor" is simply a synonym for GPCR.  Furthermore serpentine receptor is already listed as a GPCR synonym in the lead of the GPCR article.  Boghog (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect: I'm no expert here but the very first line of GPCR lists "serpentine receptor" as a synonym. Any further development of the serpentine article would constitute a content fork (see WP:CFORK). Even if the meanings were slightly different, it would be better to have serpentine receptor as a section within the other article until there is enough material to split it off.--RDBury (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The redirect supported by other editors makes good sense to me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2009 (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.