Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YCL064C

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. RL0919 (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YCL064C[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)

There is a good article on the Saccharomyces Genome Database allowing readers to access info on individual yeast genes but no purpose in having a stub about a single one in isolation. Mccapra (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We should never propose content for deletion because we either don't understand it, or think there aren't yet enough related articles to make them relevant. We should add more content, not delete what we don't like. I have added a suite of references to demonstrate that this is a notable gene. I hope the proposer will look at this video (6mins 20seconds in) to appreciate how important genome articles on Wikipedia are to the scientific community. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm very perplexed by the notion that we shouldn't have articles on topics included in external databases. That obviously wouldn't extend to external encyclopedias and reference books though I'm not sure where the difference lies. However, I expect I have got the wrong end of the stick. And this isn't the sole article about a Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast gene (see Category:Saccharomyces cerevisiae genes) but I worry that saying that may make matters worse. Thank you to Nick for adding references. Thincat (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2018 (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.