Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orphon

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. Consensus that this is a valid encyclopedic entry. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphon[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I proposed that this be deleted, with the rational that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It was contested by @Phil Bridger with the reasoning that this is a short encyclopedia article, not a dictionary entry. I disagree; this is a one-sentence dictionary definition. For reference, excluding the tags, references, and categories, the entire content of this article is:

An orphon is a gene located outside the main chromosomal locus.

This is not suitable for Wikipedia, which is not a dictionary. DannyS712 (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm afraid you are overshooting the mark here. A basic check shows that the original description publication [1](cited in the stub) provides on its own enough material to turn this into at least a start class article. And it has a couple of hundred cites; this topic can readily be expanded on. Not every one-sentence stub has to be purged as a "dictionary definition", the question is whether enough material can be added to turn it into a viable article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: Looking through some of the cites, it clear that it is a term that is used, but it doesn't seem to have coverage in-and-of itself. I would support a wiktionary redirect though --DannyS712 (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, spent ten minutes making a start on expansion. Well outside DICTDEF territory already. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Sounds like a good use for {{wiktionary redirect}}. --Nessie (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is about a concept, not a word. There is a good explanation at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which I recommend that the nominator reads, of the difference between an encyclopedia article and a dictionary entry. Length is nothing to do with it. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree this is not about a word. can redirect Alex-h (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to where? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this was either a drive-by vote or the user didn't quite get the distinctions made so far. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A valid concept in genetics, in particular in immunogenetics - [2][3][4][5]. There are research papers on it - [6] and should satisfy WP:GNG. The article is no longer just a dictionary definition and it can still be expanded, so the rationale for the AfD no longer applies. Hzh (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there overlap with this other larger WP article: Orphan gene. Britishfinance (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. They are different concepts, although the term "orphon" is derived from the word "orphan" as they appear to be "genetic elements that have lost their families". Orphons refer to isolated genes that have been displaced from the main chromosomal location, while orphan genes refer to unique genes that have no apparent relationship with other genes. Hzh (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Britishfinance (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From the discussions above, this topic more than just a dictionary entry; article is a well constructed and well referenced stub. Britishfinance (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and good work by Elmidae and Britishfinance on expanding and improving.GirthSummit _(blether) 18:44, 20 March 2019 (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.