Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One gene, one polypeptide hypothesis

From 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. --Coredesat 04:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One gene, one polypeptide hypothesis

One gene, one polypeptide hypothesis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I can't find any references to Dr. Malik being associated with the "one gene, one polypeptide" hypothesis, or extending it to "one gene, one amino acid" -- furthermore, I can't find any references to Dr. Malik as a biologist. Google isnt everything, I could be looking in the wrong places though. ArglebargleIV 12:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete The author who created this page was given a notice by removing content from the article he or she created. It doesn't look a good idea to warn the author for fixing his or her own information from the article he or she just started. (Although the warning probably had a reason, he or she removed the tags after all.) About the article, it has even 4 tags of how it lacks the quality of being in Wikipedia, (Noticing that the nominator created the tags.) and the title doesn't really explain a lot about the information in this article. I'd suggest a delete, and if some verifyable information appears, it would be better to use another title anyway. ~Iceshark7 15:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As the article itself says, "It was first proposed through the famous work of biochemists, Tatum and Beadle," This article is about Malek's unusual rewordings, which seem to be unnoticed. He's real enough, an animal geneticist with 9 papers in PubMed eg [PMID: 15109052], none apparently notable. There could be an article on the subject, which is a notable concept, but the first step would be to remove this one. DGG 00:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per DGG. While the hypothesis may deserve an article, this is not an article about the hypothesis. Dan Gluck 14:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the arguments above. There's also the slight fact that it's wrong. Someguy1221 22:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It may be a language barrier issue, but the parts of this that refer to Malek's work sound like scientific nonsense to me. In my opinion, if the topic is going to be covered, it should be under the title "One gene - one enzyme", with significant reference to Beadle & Tatum, some explanation of the molecular basis later discovered, then something about splicing. I can't find this book "Mutations and Beyond", I can't find a single web page mentioning this, without any references I must suspect this stuff associated here with Malek is a fabrication, hoax or OR. It's suspicious that the creator of the article contains the name "Mina". Even if Malek has said something on this subject, it seems to be an individual's rewording and extremely far from being notable. Madeleine 23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to one gene one protein hypothesis or one gene one enzyme hypothesis per notability or notability. The validity of the hypothesis is irrelevant considering its historical importance. The text needs serious cleaning up though. Debivort 06:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The main issue here is the complete lack of confirmable sourcing for any of this. A hypothesis being invalid is relevant when there's no hard evidence that what is written is an accurate portrayal of the theory's evolution. While the theory may be a notable precursor to modern understanding of genetics, this can only be properly written through the use of reliable sources. Someguy1221 07:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Right, and so we biologists will--probably the best name is the original: one gene one protein, as it's that formulation which won the Nobel prize. First step, as I think we all agree, is clearing out this one. DGG 02:03, 3 July 2007 (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.