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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C7orf30[edit]

C7orf30 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Does not establish notability besides existence (nor any assertion), WP:NOT a collection of everything that exists, and is not a mirror of pubmed/other related. Seriously, why should there be an article on every single human gene? Needs notability for own article. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, gene encodes "hypothetical protein". Keep or recreate if references establish function. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC) KeepWhen I said the above, the article had no references or text but was just an infobox. Now the article shows it is an acutal gene which does something it should be kept.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article may or may not qualify for deletion, but WP:CRYSTAL certainly shouldn't be a reason for deletion. Just because one aspect of the gene's action hasn't been demonstrated it doesn't mean that the gene itself hasn't been established to exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Pontificalibus  Chzz  ►  01:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am the author of this article. I made it as part of the final project for my bioinformatics class. Our goal was to study an unknown protein and as part of the final project create a wikipedia page detailing our findings. If this is still not a valid reason to keep this page, could any deletion at least be postponed so that this page may be graded by my instructor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fotd42 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - documents what a certain gene does. If we're citing "not", I think not paper is much more relevant. For a stubby article, there are enough sources to demonstrate notability. LadyofShalott 00:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - This is a borderline case. The sources cited point to a function but the precise function remains unknown. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply since the sources that suggest a possible function in turn are based on solid experimental data (protein-protein interaction) or sound theoretical reasoning (subcellular distribution). These are reliable sources and not wild speculation. While several of the protein databases describe the protein as "hypothetical", the Tsang et al. publication provides experimental evidence that the protein is expressed and interacts with other proteins. Hence the protein is no longer hypothetical. Boghog2 (talk) 09:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The gene has been proven to exist it's just that the exact function is not known yet. Compiling a list of all human genes is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology. It is pointless to delete this page now for it to recreated in the future - it is not a company that might be notable in the future but a gene whose exact function is not yet known. In my opinion the fact that it is human gene immediately asserts notability. I think this is a much more worthy article than the countless lists of TV episodes and albums for example. Smartse (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Amen! LadyofShalott 14:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I see no problem in keeping this article. We are not a paper encyclopedia and there is no shortage of space. But clearly, it requires much work to survive as a stand-alone article. Graham Colm ^Talk 14:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject is notable and some citations to the literature are given. Speaking as a biochemistry professor, however, I'd give the student a C− for this article. Do a better job summarizing the literature and explaining it to lay-people! The article reads as though you put only an hour of work into it. I'm sure you can do much better than this. Proteins (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but merge to ESCRT, the only peer-reviewed source I can find that mentions this protein is PMID 16730941, where it is listed in a table of proteins that may interact with the ESCRT complex. Not really enough to establish notability on its own, but as a possible component of a complex with a known function, certainly merits a mention in that article. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a good argument for merging - proteins tend to be able to bind to a lot of other proteins. Narayanese (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know, and since this is just a Y2H result it might very well be a false positive. However, it is the only hint of function identified and its only claim for notability. As a comment, I can't see how a predicted mitochondrial localisation and a predicted cytosolic function are at all compatible, but that is OR on my part I suppose. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, evolution thinks this protein is notable. It is just that academia hasn't figured out why yet.--Paul (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Paul. If the gene had not conferred some advantage in the last fifty thousand years or so, it would not exist in a form that could be recognized today. (Even human pseudogenes can be notable, because they map to functionality present in other species or recent ancestors. See L-gulonolactone oxidase.) --Arcadian (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As with all human genes, there is no lack of data available, there is data from both comparative genomics and expression analyses also for this gene. Wikipedia is a suitable place to summarize the information from different databases. Narayanese (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The fact that this is a highly conserved gene throughout numerous species means it must have a notable function in the body and should have a wikipedia page. Meodipt (talk) 07:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This well-documented gene, backed by multiple reliable and verifiable sources does definitely encode a protein. While we don't know what this protein does, there is no WP:CRYSTAL issue here whatsoever. Alansohn (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.