Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grim Reaper (gene)


 * 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. There is no evidence presented of a gene with such a name, and apparently no viable target for a redirect. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Grim Reaper (gene)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Much as we may debate about whether all genes in all organisms are notable, this article is misleading. There is (as far as I know), no gene called Grim Reaper, but there is a gene called grim, a gene called reaper, and a gene called hid, all of which are closely linked and are involved in apoptosis in Drosophila. Whichever gene this article is about, calling it Grim Reaper is misleading and confusing. Quasi human  &#124;  Talk  12:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  18:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect?. This has to be the most informative comment I have ever read on an AfD - thanks, User:Quasihuman (good name for talking about genes as well...).  The article clearly ought not to stand in current form.  However, would it be more productive to replace it with a redirect (not sufficiently familiar with subject to suggest a destination)? --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment! I can't think of a suitable target for the article to be redirected to. Possibly Apoptosis, but I'm not sure of the usefulness of that. If there were articles, Genetics of apoptosis or Apoptosis in Drosophila, they might be better targets, as far as I know, none of the genes I mentioned above have articles. Furthermore, while redirects are cheap, I'm not sure how useful any redirect would be given that the source first cited in this article (this revision) does not mention the gene as Grim Reaper, but mentions reaper and hid, genes which I listed above. This article seems to be based on a misunderstanding by the creator, and is not really a plausible redirect.  Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  12:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment A redirect seems reasonable per the above comments but what are the chances of anyone actually typing "Grim Reaper (gene)" in the search box. The lack of reliable sources, however, supports Quasihuman's analysis suggesting this article is either original research or at least, not very good research.  Claret Ash  03:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.