Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peptide-RNA world

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 merge to RNA world hypothesis. There appears to be a consensus that this may be a notable subject, but not yet, and this article doesn't supply the proof. Therefore, it can be spun out again if this changes. Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peptide-RNA world[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is premature to have a page on one group's 3-month-old paper, where the only non-primary source that directly refers to the subject is that group's own press release. This theory is not yet notable. Agricolae (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have found several sources illustrating that, while the study based on which I wrote the article is new, the idea of a Peptide-RNA world has existed for some time: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-16977-9_10#page-1 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11002892. Hence, while the article may need to be rewritten for more neutral and wider coverage of the subject, I do not believe that this is premature. I have also found more secondary coverage of the study itself, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130913185848.htm, though it seems to be mostly a copy of the UCLA press release. If, despite the above, consensus is that this article does not belong on Wikipedia, I propose moving it to Wikinews or my userspace as alternatives to deletion. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It certainly seems self-promotional to immediately self-rank one's article as high importance for a relevant WikiProject. If you had waited until the ink dried or someone else on the project happened along, I would be more in the corner of "keep". This could certainly be newsworthy and someone might actually want to look this up and read the article. This is notable in my opinion, but the issues remain for lack of secondary sources and neutrality. Fylbecatulous talk 12:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, I agree that the ranking was undeserved. I made it per the rating on "RNA World" which I interpreted as being a convention ("all origin of life theories are high importance". Looking at some of the other related articles, no such convention exists. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's never a good idea to rate an article you have contributed significantly to; convention or not it should be left for someone else to do. Agricolae (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Too new to have accumulated reliable secondary sources attesting to its significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the following: http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/4/7/a006742.full as support for the RNA world. I have added some of its arguments to the article, to provide a more NPOV perspective on the theory. This, along with the articles I mentioned above shows that protein-based alternatives to the RNA world are not news, and have been debated for some time. Another possible idea would be to create a broader article "Proteins in the RNA world" which would cover this and other historical ideas, both those that seek to replace the RNA world with protein molecules and those that seek to add proteins to the RNA world. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All theories are not created equal and just because when discussing an RNA world people have mentioned alternatives does not mean that those alternatives are inherently notable enough to merit a page of their own. There have been numerous papers on the RNA world, including specifically on the relevance of ribozymes and nucleotide cofactors to such a possible biochemical origin. There have been several decades-worth of reviews of it, which include the arguments positive and negative. If the alternatives are never discussed on their own in the secondary literature, but only presented as a counterpoint in writings about the RNA world, then the RNA world article needs a well-written section on alternatives rather than creating independent content fork pages for each alternative that has been suggested. The Tom Cech review you point to above is a perfect example - it only mentions the RNA-protein alternative once and then only to say that an RNA world is more parsimonious than one also involving proteins, and then he says nothing more about this alternative. That he paraded this out as a straw man and then ignored it is hardly legitimate support for the notability of the RNA-protein world alternative. Show me a review specifically on this so-called RNA-protein world (which as you say is nothing new as an alternative to the RNA world) and that would be a stronger argument about having such an article, but not one that focuses on recent speculation by one group that no secondary source has noticed. Agricolae (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in RNA world hypothesis. It deserves a mention there, it doesn't need a promotional article all devoted to a single (even if intriguing) study. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the following: The article as it currently is is stored in my userspace until secondary reliable coverage could be found showing that the study has received scientific attention. The page itself is merged into the "Alternative Hypothesis" section of RNA world with the following text:

"A recent version of this is the Peptide-RNA world hypothesis, which claims that RNA co-evolved with early enzymes ("urzymes"), which are supposed to catalyze the self-replication of RNA. These "urzymes" were found by extrapolating common features of extant enzyme groups, and shown to be catalysts in the lab. They themselves may have developed from even simpler peptides. While this theory requires the simultaneous development of two complex molecules, it could help explain why, once the molecules did form, they rapidly evolved a high fidelity (i.e. reliability of replication)." --HighFlyingFish (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have two concerns with this 'solution'. First, it gives way too much play in the RNA world article to what is just the latest in a long string of speculation about alternatives. As suggested above, NOTNEWS applies and we should not be giving so much attention to an article nobody in the scientific community has noticed enough to incorporate into a synthesis of the topic, a review. This WEIGHT issue applies just as much to this material being given detailed coverage in the RNA world article as it does in its own. The second concern is related. If we are to have an article on the alternatives to the RNA world, it should not look like the current article does, focusing entirely on this very recent result. People have been speculating for 30 years about alternatives to the RNA world, and some of those other variants have appeared in reviews. We shouldn't be saving this current iteration with its disproportionate coverage on one group's recent paper and the associated press release. If we are to have an article on alternatives, now or in the future, it should be a survey of the alternatives and not simply, 'here is an interesting recent paper with unique speculation'. Agricolae (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis#Alternative_hypotheses section basically "an article on the alternatives to the RNA world, [that does] not look like the current article does, focusing entirely on this very recent result"? What I have written as a suggested addition to that section gives a brief description of the ideas of this study, which would be given the same level of weight as the PNA-world, TNA-world and Panspermia are given in that section, but given less weight overall since it would lack its own overview article, while the other concepts (which are older and more widely reviewed) have their own pages. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our goal is to give an overview of the topic as it is viewed by the scientific community, not to give a blow by blow of each article as it comes out. Will this be viewed as offering critical insight, as just another paper, or plain wrong? Until/unless somebody in the scientific community notices this paper, we as editors can't tell. Is it a particularly noteworthy contribution to the subject or just a pet theory of a limited group of researchers? Only time will tell. Until then, it should be given far less weight than a broad concept such as panspermia that has been discussed in detail for decades in everything from the scientific literature to the popular press. Agricolae (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Agricolae. A one/two-brief-sentence mention is good, but anything more would violate WP:UNDUE, in my opinion. --cyclopia ^speak! 10:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. From looking at WP:UNDUE, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views", wouldn't that policy actually support having this as an independent article?

Though this article, as it is currently, fails several other guidelines, such as "pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained", however, wouldn't that be more ground for editing, rather than deletion? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UNDUE would support inclusion of the alternative to an RNA world within that article, but not inclusion of one specific research group's personal spin on the alternative to the RNA world. It could be argued that an article on the broader topic of a protein-RNA alternative would be justified, but as explained above, it is not a foregone conclusion that this is notable, as it seems primarily discussed in the context of the RNA world as an alternative, and not on its own. That being said, one specific research group's personal spin on the alternative to the RNA world, one that nobody else has taken notice of, certainly does not merit such a page - when you create a different page just so you can have a place to put an alternative pet theory that policy prevents from placing on an existing page, that is called a WP:CONTENTFORK. For this group's theory to merit a page of its own it not only has to be different than the majority theory, it has to have received significant independent coverage (WP:GNG), and we have no such coverage. That makes it non-notable and not meriting a page of its own. That it is just one quirky flavor of the alternative scenario means it doesn't merit significant coverage on the RNA world page either. Agricolae (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That said, "A recent version of this is the Peptide-RNA world hypothesis, which claims that RNA co-developed with early enzymes ("urzymes"), which are supposed to catalyze the self-replication of RNA." is probably sufficient coverage of this theory within the RNA world article itself, if I understand the policy correctly. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing recent about the hypothesis of a Peptide-RNA world. I just don't get why this one study (not the longstanding underlying concept of a Peptide-RNA alternative to the RNA world, but this specific study) must be given disproportionate attention when the broader community has yet to notice it. Agricolae (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. New suggestion: "Another proposal is that the dual molecule system we see today, where a nucleotide-based molecule is needed to synthesize protein, and a protein-based molecule is needed to make nucleic acid polymers, represents the original form of life. Such a "Peptide-RNA world" has the advantage of providing proteins as catalysts for the complex process of RNA self-replication, which might otherwise be unlikely to develop and slow to evolve a high fidelity. Its primary weakness is that is it would require the independent formation of two complex molecules, which would then have to be compatible to form a living system."

This study and some of the other secondary sources that I found and included for this article are included solely as references, and Peptide-RNA world is made into a redirect to the "Alternative Hypotheses" section of RNA world. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request: I intend to rewrite this article so that it gives less weight to this study and more to the concept as a whole. Please wait at least until October 24th to delete it. Thank You. Sorry. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made changes to address some of the valid concerns raised here. Does the current article give a more neutral overview of the topic? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At a first look seems to me it could be a synthesis of stuff to create the impression there is a notable concept where there is none. --cyclopia ^speak! 08:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand, given that SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition and SYNTH is not summary. Could you please elaborate? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is back to the same old issue (well, one of them, at least). Is the RNA-protein world notable in and of itself, or is it primarily mentioned only as a counterpoint to the RNA world? If the former, then there should be stand-alone reviews that talk about the primordial RNA-protein dual-system world. If you have to cobble it together from primary literature and commentary about the RNA world that only give fleeting mention to the RPW (such as the Tom Cech review), then that is not really independent notability, and it should be covered I the RNA world article alone. Agricolae (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

from Wikipedia:Notability #General notability guideline ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."--HighFlyingFish (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And here I would have bolded the first of the two sentences, the part about "directly and in detail", and about "no original research being needed", and I would have continued with the part farther down the page that says "Sources should be secondary sources". The article as it stands has 9 references (although 4 & 7 are identical). Of these: 1 is a non-independent press release, and 3 derives directly from that press release; 2 & 5 are primary (the first has been cited zero times, the second once even though it is a decade old, so neither have attracted the kind of notice that would make them impactful); 4/7 is a freshman-level textbook, which is not going to give more than passing reference to any theory of molecular origins; 6 is a book chapter that will take me a week to track down; 8 is just being used to back up criticism of the RNA world, so it does not contribute to the notability of the RPW, and 9 can barely even be called a passing reference. So, at best you have one secondary source, and that is not significant coverage of a scientific hypothesis. Agricolae (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now gotten hold of ref 6, and while it discusses a peptide/RNA world, it speaks of it in succession to the RNA world, not as used here, as an alternative to it. Since this was the only possible secondary source that might have given significant coverage to this alternative to the RNA world we are now left with none. Agricolae (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy and wait per WP:NOTNEWS. -- 101.119.14.213 (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a noteworthy idea. Wincent77 (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a noteworthy idea (eye of the beholder), but it certainly doesn't look like a NOTABLE one. Agricolae (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2013 (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.