Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voltage-gated ion channel (VIC) family

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. The relevant material has been merged to

talk) 05:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Voltage-gated ion channel (VIC) family

Voltage-gated ion channel (VIC) family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is redundant with the existing page

content fork. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The editor who created the page has commented about this deletion discussion at Talk:Voltage-gated ion channel (VIC) family. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly merge. Make this page a redirect to Voltage-gated ion channel, but keep edit history, just in case to allow merging of content if needed. Content of this page should be probably merged to Voltage-gated ion channel rather than outright deleted, because some parts of this page are written in a different and more professional way than "Voltage-gated ion channel". No wander because it was mostly taken from the corresponding Transporter Classification Database entry. This is probably the only database that provides annotated classification of transmembrane transporters. Everything seems to be OK with copyright [3]. Use of TCDB here should be encouraged. My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your good intentions here, but please note that I already merged content. As for being written in a "more professional way", please realize that it is not in any way a survey of the topic, but rather, a somewhat promotional representation of a classification scheme that has been put forward by a single laboratory group, that has yet to be taken up by independent secondary sources. Here are PubMed hits for "voltage-gated ion channel": over 18,000 hits. Now, here are the results for "VIC superfamily": 72 hits, all of which appear to be mismatches: search for exact phrase. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at our page on Transporter Classification Database, and it's sourced entirely to a single group of authors. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, here are the PubMed results for "Transporter Classification Database": only 16 hits, of which only 4 are independent of the lab that publishes the website. That is a disturbingly low rate of citation by independent scholars. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about making this page a redirect to
WP:RS or as something self-published. As someone who at least occasionally uses TCDB, I believe this is is definitely an WP:RS based on quality of the annotations. My very best wishes (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for such a thoughtful reconsideration after my reply. I'm open to a redirect, and also open to preserving the edit history. As for the redirect, typing the beginning of this page name into "search" will immediately bring up the target page name, because they are very similar. The one part of the page name that is potentially useful as a redirect is the "VIC" abbreviation, and, as I noted above, I have already added it to the VIC disambiguation page, and it needs to be disambiguation because of the many other uses of that abbreviation. As for the edit history, when (again, as linked above) I merged what I could of the content, I attributed the source page in the edit summary, which satisfies the formal requirement. Beyond that, administrators can (or is it crats?) do things with merging page histories that I confess I do not fully understand, but perhaps the admin who closes this AfD could take a look at doing that. Another option would be to keep the page in user space rather than in main space. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish If you'd like to merge the VIC family page with the the general voltage-gated ion channel page, I think the VIC family deserves to be distinguished. Perhaps making a seperate section that describes the VIC family. I want to point out that not all voltage-gated ion channels fall under the Voltage-gated ion channel superfamily or family, thus part of my reasoning for making the family page a entity. So far, it appears as though there has been no further merger of information from the VIC family page to the general voltage-gated ion channel page, contrary to your initial assertion. In fact, I noticed that you reverted several edits I made to [4], including content related, spelling, and grammatical errors I corrected. For example, "Upon depolarization, the positively-charged residues on the S4 domains toward the exoplasmic surface of the membrane." is not a complete sentence, and "exracellular" needs a "T", etc.. This revert included changing a correction I made to distinguish the VIC superfamily from the VIC family, where TC# 1.A.1, the most important of the families under the VIC superfamily should have been included in the list. It seems as though you may be confused about the phylogeny of the VIC superfamily. As mentioned in the VIC family (the one recommended for deletion here), the current VIC family (formerly called the VIC superfamily, due to the subfamilies that fall under it) now falls under an expanded superfamily, the VIC superfamily, that includes families 1.A.1,3,4,5,10,17, 2.A.36, 2.A.38. However, I don't want to stand in the way If it is the consensus that the pages be merged. Still, I do believe that the original page ([5]) would then need to be updated and have a section dedicated to the VIC family, as is the case with all other families that fall under the VIC superfamily. User:Transporter Guy (Chat) 22:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which exactly voltage-gated ion channels that do not belong to the Voltage-gated ion channel superfamily are you talking about? Obviously, many other channels will depend on TM potential (for example Mechanosensitive channels), but I thought that Voltage-gated ion channel page was specifically about proteins that belong to VIC superfamily. Was not it? My very best wishes (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you should be able to cite reliable sources. And assuming that this is true, is it recognized for the purpose of functional classification of proteins, or for the purpose of genetic phylogeny? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given that is is purported to be "recommended by the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology", I found the IUBMB's website listing their recommendations: [6]. I cannot find TCDB there. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and re-create as a redirect. Like many pages copied from the Transporter Classification Database by this editor, this contains copyright violations from the cited sources. I've now blanked it and listed it at
    WP:CP. I've also asked the editor not to add any more content from that source until this situation is completely clarified and consensus reached on whether or not he should do so. The editor should also have declared here that he represents or manages the database, and so has a conflict of interest. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep and fix a couple of minor copyright problems. This page seem to represent a legitimate, informative and well sourced sub-page of Voltage-gated ion channel and should be included as such (right now this is not clear, hence the misunderstanding). This page, Voltage-gated ion channel (VIC) family is about a smaller family of Voltage-gated ion channels, whereas page Voltage-gated ion channel is about a much larger protein superfamily also called by the same name. Actually, the misunderstanding probably comes from the underlying TCDB classification, where 1.A.1. is called "superfamily" instead of "family" [7] and it was described in the database as a superfamily [8] (!?). This is actually a family that supposed to be described on this page. Unfortunately, TCDB does not include descriptions/summaries for superfamilies. Hence the description of superfamily was placed to a family entry 1.A.1. leading to confusion here. My very best wishes (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to make a general comment here instead of trying to respond individually to each comment above. A careful reading of the source material will show that VIC is neither a subgroup of the voltage-gated ion channels, nor are the latter a subgroup of VIC, regardless of what some other editors have said. VIC appears to include some molecules that are voltage-gated ion channels, as well as some transporters and the like that are not ion channels at all. In any case, it is a classification system that comes up in PubMed searches in only 4 scholarly papers that are independent of the lab that maintains the website (cf over 18,000 about voltage-gated ion channels). It is not notable for Wikipedia's purposes. Given that it has now emerged that the external website contains copyright violations (regardless of its stated licensing), it is no longer appropriate to retain the edit history here. And beyond the already existing dab page at VIC, there is no reason to have a redirect. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to the copyvio concerns, I just deleted the Nomeclature section at Voltage-gated ion channel. As for the material that I merged earlier to another section, I was very careful about rewording everything in my own words when I did it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you,
    WP:CP (which unfortunately is seriously under-manned at the moment) or the nominated page was deleted. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Voltage-gated_ion_channel_(VIC)_family&oldid=1071982864"