Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable genes

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. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of notable genes

List of notable genes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Of the ~25,000 human genes (not specified in the title) this list provides no good criteria for inclusion and is pretty meaningless, it could conceivably have potential as a category for genes associated with human disease (about 60% of the genes listed), but as is delete --Peta 03:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep- Definitely could be expanded. I find it akin to List of major opera composers, which eventually attained a featured list status. bibliomaniac15 03:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Rename and Keep List of notable human genes. This project has real possibilities, can be sourced, and can be verified. Obviously it needs some expansion, and some trimming, and some consistency, but I see no reason to delete this list. wtfunkymonkey 05:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral The list, as it currently exists, is completely worthless. Why are these genes notable, and why would I care? It is basically biologycruft right now, but there is potential, which is the only thing that stops me from voting delete. Resolute 06:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I Googled several of these genes and found over 40,000 Google hits for individual ones. The list is supposed to be of genes so notable they have Wikipedia articles. It is thus an overview of an importaant part of 21st century science and medicine. There is no proposal to list every gene whether or not its function has been detyermined. My training is far from this field, but even I have heard of the BRCA genes which predispose to breast cancer, and the gene for lactose intolerance, but I would not eaasily find most of them because of their cryuptic names. This is a crucially important field, and a Wikipedia level treatment of the various genes will be useful to people with a diagnosis of genetic disorder, or who want to follow up on something in the news. The future development of the article may require breakup into sections for developmental genes, genes related to cancer, etc. For now the present list should be kept and improves. If we have articles for 493 Pokemon video game characters, which get featured status, since Wikipedia is not paper, we should keep a list of human genes to help find articles on individual ones with non-rememberable names. Edison 14:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, started improvent myself, see below.Neutral, if kept it needs a lot, a lot of work. For starters, it should mention why these genes are considered notable. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This falls under the Wikipedia Is Not Paper group for articles. As said above it needs a lot of work but there is real potential here. Some genes are more notable than others, especially from a medical point of view. MartinDK 16:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the criteria in italics works for me. hateless 21:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and rename Although there is some potential here for disputes etc. This is a very valuable effort to do a good editing job of interpreting a very complex subject matter and pointing the reader to information they may otherwise miss. The human genome is very notable and the most notable genes within it notable as well. I don't think that this would do well as a category alone. To be truely useful it need more information attached to each entry but let's call this a stub and move on.--Nick Y. 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this list is certainly workable, with a limited scope and annotations for each gene.-- danntm ^T _C 04:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename per above. --- RockMFR 23:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, at this time I have started a rigourous cleanup of the article, starting at the top of the list [1]. As you look at the article now, the top of the list is already adjusted, the bottom is still the old list. Many internal links were fixed, external links were directed to genecards instead. Most entries were corrected with regard to names, notability of genes was explained where not provided and a few will be removed from the list as I continue. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename as said. This will be a great resource with proper cleanup and expansion. --Howrealisreal 16:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, cleanup is finished now, links repaired, each gene now shows either a disease or a description why it is considered notable. The article is ready for expansion, since the list is still highly arbitrary. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I've heard it said that the list of genes discovered will one day be as important as the Periodic table, so I suppose a listing has to start somewhere. Static Universe 19:12, 5 January 2007 (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.