Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nkx2-2as


 * 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 KEEP. postdlf (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Nkx2-2as

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete This pages is not notable. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment But why is this article not notable? No justification for this AfD nomination has been offered. Boghog (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The source is from a peer reviewed article in a respected journal. The gene is conserved, therefore evolution knows it's notable. It's just taking scientific researchers a little longer to figure this out. --Paul (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not every peer reviewed paper deserves its own Wikipedia article. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Comment: Agreed. But this doesn't exclude the fact that some papers do. I would argue that each species and gene is notable enough to deserve an article. Eventually there will be multiple sources for each. Science is just a little slow. BTW, I've added some more refs to the article, will add more content in time. --Paul (talk) 08:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject of multiple peer reviewed articles, function has been determined. Boghog (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to NKX2-2, which is the only article that links to it at present. Scientific researchers already know what it does: it regulates the expression of Nkx2-2. Google Scholar gives 7 hits, so it does seem to be have some minor notability, but its function can't be understood independently of Nkx2-2 and it would therefore be more sensible to include it in that article. The body text of both articles is short at the moment so a merged article wouldn't be long. Perhaps every human gene that codes for a protein is worthy of a separate article, but perhaps not every stretch of non-coding DNA that is transcribed to RNA. --Qwfp (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tochitani and Hayashizaki don't share your view on one target per this regulator. And it isn't non-coding DNA: it clearly (shown by effect of forced expression and by conservation) is a gene. Narayanese (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It's in RefSeq, a hand-curated database. That assures that there is data in other databases as well btw (GEO says it's more highly expressed in brown fat than in other tissues). And per Boghog. Narayanese (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep considering how many entries Category:Non-coding RNA has, I think this is likely sufficintly notable. Probably more can be added from . Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2011 (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.