Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transfer of mitochondrial and chloroplast DNA to the nucleus

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 delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer of mitochondrial and chloroplast DNA to the nucleus[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is largely unnecessary. It has no references and the subject matter is already discussed in parent articles. A delete is probably the best bet. Though, a merge would suffice. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 01:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Merge if there is anything not already in the endosymbiosis article) - it is a question that is discussed from time to time in the scientific literature, but that doesn't mean the best way to deal with it in Wikipedia is to have a separate article. There should be a section in the endosymbiosis article that covers 1) presumed transfer of various functional metabolic genes now found in nucleus, 2) presence of pseudogene copies of part of mt or cpDNA in nucleus, and 3) that there seems some limit to complete transfer, as there are no known cases of organelle-containing organisms without an organellar genome. It is too arcane a topic to merit a stand-alone article. It is part and parcel of the endosymbiotic process, and the only thing noteworthy about it, why it doesn't go to completion, has no answer. Once answered it will likely only become less worthy of a stand-alone article. Agricolae (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I fully agree. It warrants a small section/mention in the endosymbiosis article. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 07:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsensical and hypothetical personal WP:ESSAY. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ESSAY --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete bizarre, no reliable sources discussing this. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if possible, merge. The information contents like Numt and CoRR hypothesis should be included in the "parent-article" (Endosymbiont?). As well, the title is big, perhaps only because the user did not knew/ forgot there is a term for it, "promiscuous DNA". I could not find yet any article or paragraph with this exact term. So I think this article for deletion certainly have some content to contribute. We should take the information content and the list of theories into existing Wikipedia articles. We should also explain the page owner that why a high number of page is troublesome for readers, and should help the owner to learn the process of merging. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"owner"? What the hell are you talking about? And there is nothing sourced here to move anywhere. You make it clear on your userpage that you want to keep stuff, but there is no policy-compliant policy here to keep. Nada. You are obligated to follow policy and guidelines when you edit Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the article may have future potential for expansion; however, it currently contains almost no unique information that couldn't be added to Endosymbiont or Symbiogenesis. Also, there is no article owner as per WP:OWN. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 18:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as above. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2017 (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.