Wikipedia guideline on notability of molecular biology topics
The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.
This page in a nutshell: Biology has a number of large kinds of topics
NotabilityGeneral notability guidelineSubject-specific guidelinesAcademicsAstronomical objectsBooksEventsFilmsGeographic featuresMusicNumbersOrganizations and companiesPeopleSports and athletesWeb content
See also
Notability essaysGuide to deletionCommon deletion outcomesWhy was my article deleted?
.mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output .navbar li a abbr{color:var(--color-base)!important}@media(prefers-color-scheme:dark){html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .mw-parser-output .navbar li a abbr{color:var(--color-base)!important))@media print{.mw-parser-output .navbar{display:none!important))vte
Notability on Wikipedia is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. In additional to case-by-case notability for each member of a kind, it may be possible to establish notability for all members of a kind (de facto notability) within certain parameters. This most often comes up when bulk-creating a large set of articles for a kind (e.g. species, human genes, protein superfamilies).
Databases don't significantly disagree on what is and isn't of that kind (e.g. SCOP and CATH agree on most members, but there are some conflicting classifications)
Members wouldn't be better listed within an existing Wikipedia page (e.g. subspecies/strains/variants/cultivars could go within their parent species page)
If most members in the kind have only a small amount of information and don't require additional prose, consider a table (e.g. restriction enzyme cut sites)
The kind has a 'manageable' number of members or instances (no idea how to define this). If there are too many members of a kind to warrant individual pages, consider one hierarchical level above (e.g. 41 protein architectures is reasonable, 500,000 protein domains is probably not [1]).
Even if the whole set isn't inherently notable, individual members of the set may still be under WP:GNG.
Even when all members of a kind are deemed notable, it is still necessary to consider the best structure for the information, especially of considering creation of large numbers of stubs. Options include:
An individual page for each member
A summary page with structured information on each member as rows of a table
A summary page with unstructured information on each member as sections
A small number of summary pages with members grouped by some intermediate level categories
Indirectly observed organisms (e.g. metagenomics): may still be notable but probably not as a kind
Subspecies/strains/variants/cultivars: usually within the organism's page
Cell lines: probably not inherently notable as a kind?
Human genes: de facto notable?
Mutations: usually within the gene/protein
Protein families & superfamilies/clans: superfams de facto notable, families likely notable? (Pfam 33.1 lists 18259 families and 635 clans, SCOP 2 lists 5840 families and 2783 superfamilies, CATH 4.3 lists 6631 superfamilies and >30000 families)
RNA families & superfamilies/clans: superfams de facto notable, families likely notable? Rfam 14 lists 4069 families and 127 clans.
RNA motifs: de facto notable? Subject of the recent AfD. Closest equivalent are protein motifs, though no database currently collates an equivalent to Rfam's RNA motifs.
Restriction enzyme cut sites: as a kind, most members don't require a prose description and info is typically structured, so just the summary table is appropriate for most.