Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exinct

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. I'll allow someone more experienced with the subject handle any renaming/expansion (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exinct[edit]

I believe this fails notability requirements. Although there are three references, each is by the same authors. I have had no luck establishing any other reference, though I cannot claim any expertise in the field. Furthermore, the account exinct (talk · contribs) seems to have been made to promote the work of these authors (see also In_vivo_selection_of_an_entire_exon and 3'-Cluster. Basie (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Basie (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect seems to be self-aggrandizement but a rd to SMN2 (or a dab asking if Extinct was actually intended) is reasonable; SMN2 appears notable despite its current redlinked status. JJL (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears the term has been used by other researchers as well. [1][2] -Atmoz (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to the gene SMN2 and expand. Unless I'm missing something, there seems no reason why not to have an article on the gene which is redlinked from Chromosome 5 (human) (SMN1 already exists), and this research is relevant and sourced to reputable publications. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the references! I did try for PubMed hits, but apparently my search was inept. Espresso Addict's solution seems a worthwhile approach. Cheers, Basie (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 05:29, 14 January 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.