Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enzyme modulator

Enzyme modulator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

article low in context, does not offer much Iban14mxl (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the article may be bad, but that's not a reason to delete it. The topic passes WP:GNG with many sources specific to the topic showing up with a Google Scholar search. I will defer to the opinion of people more knowledgeable on the subject. Stockhausenfan (talk) 07:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TNT, or redirect to an article worth reading. I have an open mind on whether we need an article on the topic at the moment, because my Google search produced mostly copies of this article[[1]], material about enzymes that failed to mention enzyme modulators[[2]], or mentioned them as a fuzzy after-thought, and very few genuinely useful articles (such as this [[3]]). There are also articles that talk about modulators of enzymes as possible pharmaceuticals, but it's not clear to me whether they support the idea of "enzyme modulators" as a specific term, or whether this is just natural language (see [[4]] where many of these are titles referring to enzyme modulators but they're just trying to say that a class of pharmaceutical modulates the activity of a particular target enzyme; it's like jam-jar labels, they label jam jars, we talk about jam jar labels but there's nothing special about them beyond being labels that happen to have been stuck on a jam jar. But the fact remains that this article is three sentences. The first is a dictionary definition. The second is only partially correct. The third is a quote taken out of context and entirely incomprehensible (and irrelevant). There's nothing here worth salvaging. Our readers would be much better served by something like being redirected to Allosteric modulator or something similar. Elemimele (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The term is just a broad label encompassing enzyme activator, enzyme inhibitor, and allosteric regulator. A large number of Google Scholar hits for such a general term isn't surprising; you'd probably get a lot of hits for "high-speed synthesis"; that doesn't mean the dozens of uses of that term would be a single cohesive topic. I could accept a redirect to enzyme regulation if people feel strongly against deletion, but I don't think there's anything here to save. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further contributions clarifying target for redirection would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have been working with enzymes, and especially enzyme kinetics, since 1965, and I have never met this term before today. It seems to have been arbitrarily invented by a virologist whose contributions to enzymology have been minimal. Insofar as we need a term that embraces both inhibitors and activators the one established in the literature is "modifier", standard at least since it was used by Botts and Morales in 1954. Athel cb (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]