Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DnaC

Merge with DNA and delete. Neutrality 14:50, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * No such decision, either you mean merge and redirect or delete outright. -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 21:45, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep in its present form. (1) It is useful to have keywords point to the general purpose article, so don't delete it. (2) It is also useful to have a short defn so that someone who comes looking for the keyword doesn't have to search a long article to find its defn, so don't replace it with a redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:46, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Wile E. makes the cogent point that was nagging me but I couldn't elucidate. -- orthogonal 02:23, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * [Moved from VfD by Jerzy(t) 03:56, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)]
 * confirmed, (Homer voice: "Stupid [edit] this section links!") -- orthogonal 22:05, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * create redirects, after merge with "articles" on DnaA, DnaB, DnaG to write one article about these enzymes. Don't merge with DNA, it's got nothing to do! If we create an article for every gene, we'll have 3237 stubs of E. coli genes, 6034 stubs of S. cerevisiae genes, 13,061 stubs of Drosophila genes, 19,099 stubs of C. elegans genes, 25,000 stubs of Arabidopsis genes, 30,000 stubs of human genes, .... catch my drift? pir 15:46, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * create redirects. Information would be more relevant under enzymes, or under helicase or primase. DnaB seems to be both helicase and primase: this confused me, and when I Googled it things didn't get much clearer!  The problem will be finding someone to do a decent job on the merge.  Noisy 17:15, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. If I am researching DnaC I likely know alot about DNA anyway and do not wish to wade through for relevent data. It will expand soon enough. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 16:43, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)