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, consensus is that the article is currently a nelogism. Davewild (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proteostasis[edit]

Proteostasis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms: The term is a neologism coined by the authors of the primary reference (all of whom are co-founders of a company in that name [1]). There is no other scientific usage (according to PubMed) outside direct reference to this paper, and a number of those are from the same authors. One of the SPAs that have contributed to the article puts it best on the talk page:Yes, the term proteostasis is a neologism and (so far) there is only one article in pub med to reference the term. It should be noted, however, that the authors are Giants in their field and the term is making is way in several international meetings and discussions in the field. It will be of great use for the scientific community to have a wiki page on this neologism to be able to follow its evolution. Delete without prejudice of future recreation, if and when it does become a term used outside one research team. Rockpocket 17:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion noted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. Rockpocket 00:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That is the sole source I refer to, and the others are all citing that source. Just because one coins a neologism in Nature does not make it a notable in the field. Rockpocket 19:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two more that may help. [4], here [5]. ShoesssS Talk 19:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The latter is by one of the authors that made up the word (and one of the co-founders of their company) and is also, apparently, one of the SPAs that contributed to the article (Rickmorimoto (talk · contribs)). The former is in direct reference to the article where the it was first coined. My point is that the term has not gained any traction beyond those that coined it in the original paper and those referencing that usage. Scientists coin their own buzzwords all the time and then try and promote its use. I seen no evidence that it is yet an accepted concept in the scientific community, and the author of the article has admitted as such. Indeed the first usage of it was less than 4 months ago so its clearly a neologism (and again, the author admits as much). Should we really be creating scientific articles on the basis of single papers? I don't think so. Rockpocket 20:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It's been used in several articles published in Nature, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which are the three highest-impact journals in general science. That's notable enough for me. --Itub (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Really? I would be grateful if you could direct me to the articles in Nature and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that use the term. The authors of the Science article (cleverly) put the word in the title of their article and thus most of the Ghits are to reference lists. I find a only single published use of the word by anyone, anywhere, (other than by those who coined it) and that is in direct reference to their paper. I note also that the preview of the primary source [6] states Balch et al. (p. 916) now review the so-called proteostasis machinery (my bold), reinforcing that the term is not a established one, but a neologism the authors had coined. Rockpocket 00:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original inventions. If you or a friend invented the word frindle, a drinking game, or a new type of dance move, it is not notable enough to be Wikipedia article material until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.

There are not multiple, verifiable sources, AND the main editors on this page appear to be the authors that coined the word Proteostasis. Furthermore, the sentence written by one of the main editors that "The neologism will be adopted by the scientific community" gives the impression (whether right or wrong) that the editors are using wikipedia to promote use of the term and boost notability of the authors that coined it, which is also an infringement of Wikipedia policy on self promotion. Maybe once the word is used in articles independent of the original authors, this page will be needed in wikipedia, but I do not think it is notable enough yet.~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 01:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - but it is only published in ONE article. The other papers listed on the page cite that one paper but chose not to use the term proteostasis (unless you count the reference list!). ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 20:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then delete. One publication is not enough.Biophys (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is a concept, perhaps not new, the idea that by maintaining the proteome one can ameliorate disease. It is an important concept. There is another peer reviewed Cell paper that appears Septemeber 5 that uses and extends this concept. It is is ridiculous to argue that a paper published in 2008 should already be highly cited, I am confident that if you leave this intact for a few months that it will in fact be highly cited —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5beta5 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the issue is about how often the paper becomes cited, it's more an issue of how frequently the term proteostasis becomes used. The science is not in question, but the word is just not yet in common use.

Citations reflect consideration of the acceptance of the word "proteostasis", especially if they use it in the newly published paper and acceptance and use of the concept of proteostasis as defined above, which is arguably more important. Given that it takes several months from the time of submission to the time of acceptance of a scientific paper, it will take some time to discern how widely accepted the term becomes in the scientific literature and in the literature at large. It seems a bit harsh to conclude that the term represents neologism when papers featuring the term and concept are being published in the top journals including Science (and one I know to becoming out in Cell) are not just using the term but featuring the concept as a new strategy for correcting some of the most important diseases of our era. These journals have very high standards and so should Wikipedia and this concept a term deserves a chance. One of the first arguments put forward to delete the term was that one of the authors started a company with proteostasis in the name. Neologism dosen't fly to raise tens of millions of dollars, this term and the concept has legs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5beta5 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:CRYSTAL: "While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen." When the scientific community use the term consistently (rather than Jeff Kelly and his collaborators, who, dare I suggest could be the authors of the forthcoming Cell paper you mention?) then this article can be recreated without prejudice. As you say yourself, "it will take some time to discern how widely accepted the term becomes in the scientific literature and in the literature at large." Our policies dictate that we wait until that time before writing an article on it. Rockpocket 01:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in a few years this term may become as widely-used as "transcriptome" or be ignored and fall into disfavor. At present we don't know. Good luck with the Cell paper though! Tim Vickers (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, new concepts that are articulated clearly and which change the way people think about important problems are important and will stick-I am done engaging in this "scholarly discussion", this seems like a clear case of a couple of individuals who are highly motivated to kill this at any cost and nothing is going to stand in there way. Wikipedia is supposed to be a place where you can quickly learn something, a rapidly evolving source of knowledge, the standard should be whether you learn something and not whether two people don't like the term. The reality is that 4 pages of one of the hardest journals to publish in thought this was an important concept and term, as did the reviewers–––are the opponents of this term more thoughtful and credentialed than the editor of Science, the reviewers and the authors ?. That is for an independent person to decide and hopefully not the opponents if wikipedia has a chance at being an unbiased source of scholarly information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5beta5 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 5beta5, Please do not consider the suggestions to remove the proteostasis page as a personal attack, or an attack on the science. It really is not. There are several links added to this discussion (above) pointing out certain "rule and regulations" on wikipedia - please read them, they explain everything. Like peer-reviewed journals, wikipedia also has guidelines to stick to, and one of these is to only include things that are established and verifiable. As suggested above, there is no need to remove the entire content on proteostasis from the encyclopedia, but you may consider merging it into the homeostasis page and even introduce your term there. Right now, it is not well known enough to warrant a page of its own - that is all. P.S. Me thinks some the "opponents" may be thoughtful reviewers and credentialed authors of respected scientific journals - don't you? <friendly ribbing to break the tension> ;o) ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 05:00, 21 June 2008 (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.
More