Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Posttranscription regulation


 * 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 Speedy Keep. The strongest original reason for this article's deletion was the copyvio, which easily could have (and, in fact, has) been addressed without this AfD. As has been pointed out, AfD is not a place to take cleanup issues. Is the article flawed? Yes. Is that a reason for deletion? No. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 03:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Posttranscription regulation

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This reads like a set of notes rather than a coherent article, and in fact the individual items have been copied, with misprints, from "A Molecular Biology Glossary" here. The extracts are short enough, and there are enough typos, to make not immediately obvious; but I have put on the article's talk page a comparison of passages from the article and the glossary.

The first article was input by about 09:35 this morning; the second, identical except for the title, about 15 minutes later by, who said when I tagged it "i am the same author sorry for copy and paste".

Delete both as copyvio and as not a coherent article. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Comment No Way Should Deletion of This Article Even Be Considered With 52,000 google scholar hits on Post-transcriptional regulation the only question should be why there is no article on the topic in Wikipedia. Wikipedia's MCB and genetics articles are few and far enough between and missing in some major topics as to be embarrassing. Please just close this AfD now. Thank you. I removed the copyright violation text, and left a stub.--Blechnic (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   — Beloved  Freak  21:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please close under SNOW. --Blechnic (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The topic is clearly notable and material exists for the creation of a fine article (without copyvio - thanks Blechnic)). A temporary redirect to Regulation_of_gene_expression may be justified until sufficient material is generated to require a spinout article. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 01:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I considered the temporary redirect, but that area's pretty sparse, also, and the topic is so prominent it is probably better to just keep the stub (it's listed somewhere, too, as a stub), rather than get it lost in the redirect, in my opinion. It is a more valid option than deletion, though.  --Blechnic (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clearly notable, just needs an article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  01:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep (and redirect for now) - Yes, a very notable subject, though it does need some substance. That'll be taken care of soon enough, I think. – ClockworkSoul 01:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect This material would be excellent to have in Wikipedia, very notable and currently has terrible coverage! That said, I think a visitor to wikipedia would greatly benefit for the expansion occurring within the regulation of gene expression page&mdash;I fear they'd miss out on the improvements if they occur on a separate page. :-) If it does get too big, you can certainly make a separate article out of it later.  Madeleine ✉ ✍ 01:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, as nomination reasons have been fixed.--MrFishGo Fish 02:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. AfD is not forced cleanup, and the only issues you seem to have with this article can/have already been fixed by normal editing.  In the future for such things, consider BOLDly FIXing it yourself or referring it to an entity such as WICU or the ARS.  Celarnor Talk to me  03:24, 14 April 2008 (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.