Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Migration inducting gene 7


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200  (talk &#124; ctrb) 01:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Migration inducting gene 7

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This topic might be notable, but the easiest way to write one would be to throw this out and start again. Specific issues: tone; highly technical jargon; almost all sources are primary sources rather than secondary; all references need to be reformated; no wikilinks; no categories; no wikiprojects. A random sample of the many references revealed that most of them appear not to actually mention this gene. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Withdraw based on complete write of the article by . Stuartyeates (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I don't think any of the problems listed are reason to delete. The article clearly has issues, but I think they can be fixed. The topic is notable and I can find quite a few journal articles mentioning it which can be added as refs if they are not already in the article. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - I have a suspicion this was copy-pasted from somewhere... whether that was someone's paper in Word or a journal I don't know... this is articles for deletion, not titles for deletion... bad articles can be userfied if the creator shows interest in improving them, or deleted. It's also quite unclear to me whether this topic itself is ever independently notable. There are thousands of genes/proteins/enzymes some of which warrant individual articles, most of which do not. While I could probably believe the topic itself is notable (due to its prominence as the subject of papers), I don't think this article adds much, or even provides a scaffolding for future editors to build on. Shadowjams (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's notable due to its association with cancer and its atypical translation. I also believe this article can be fixed without deleting and starting again; I haven't found any evidence of copyright violation that would require that. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "due to its association with cancer and its atypical translation" is not a reason for keep. As you'll see, I'm open to the idea the topic is notable due to some hints at its coverage; but merely describing some aspects of the article's subject is a non sequitur. The unlinked footnote references that make no sense, and the odd line breaking makes it 99% likely that it was copy pasted, it isn't clear from where though. Shadowjams (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep A GScholar search for "Mig-7 gene" yields 218 hits, including secondary sources indicating its significance such as . These multiple reliable sources in the form of peer-reviewed papers by groups independent of the discoverers show the gene and its associated protein to be a notable topic. As the nom notes, the article is in need of cleanup, such as wikification and reformatting. But the article is already readable and well-cited. Issues like these are surmountable problems, and per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, the article should be improved rather than deleted. Thanks go to Sarahj2107 for making a start on this. If some or all of the material is a copyvio, then it needs to go. But until that is shown, a notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 11:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Update It looks like Sarahj2107 has worked through the whole article, bringing it into Wikipedia format and removing potential OR and synth. As a much rewritten article, I'd say that concerns about formatting or copyright violations have been addressed and deletion through WP:TNT is no longer reasonable. Nice work, Sarah! --Mark viking (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY; the article has been significantly improved by User:Sarahj2107, and the topic is notable. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has been improved. Aliceswift1998 (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2014 (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.