Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HOX9

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

HOX9

There is no HOX9, only HOXA9, HOXB9, HOXC9, and HOXD9 (in humans, differs in other species) (see for example: PubMed on HOXA9). Some genes of the HOXA and HOXD seem to be involved in the penis and digit size, but that would be 13 [1] An article on a single HOX gene is not going to be easy to write as the hox gene evolution is quite complex. I suggest deletion of this stub for that reason above trying to improve it. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominated. Also, smells like a hoax with no references. Brian G. Crawford 06:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 08:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'll go with Kim's knowledge in this area. Kevin 11:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kim, since she knows of which she speaks here. HOAX9 it is. Just zis Guy you know? 13:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-verifiable WP:V. I may have this wrong (genetics is not my strong point) but Hox9 would describe the activation region / gene cluster where as HOXA9, HOXB9, HOXC9, and HOXD9 would be the genes. --blue520 15:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. Well, you would need one for each cluster (and would be HOXA, HOXB, HOXC HOXD, nine indicates the order of the gene in the cluster), as the clusters are located at different chromosomes. Regulation in hox genes works actually quite different from other genes, with number of start codons (instead of a single one) as an important aspect for which hox genes in a cluster are activated and which are not. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus}

  Comment Pending the outcome of this AfD the reference to HOX9 in Human penis size (Micropenis sub section) may need to be modified, and thank you Kim van der Linde for the explanation.--blue520 16:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks and done, is misleading. (Stricktly speaking, this should only happen after the AfD is closed, but this is just incorrect information by itself.) Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:36, 12 May 2006 (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.