Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gli family zinc finger 4

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gli family zinc finger 4

[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)

Reason Telefocus (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC) Article is not noteworthy.[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 22:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Procedural keep. Although the topic appears technical to most readers, Category:Genes on human chromosome 8 has 455 categories. No reason has been given to single out only 1. Geschichte (talk) 10:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment without taking a position on this particular article, this is not a valid procedural keep rationale, per
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's possible that if this one IS agreed on for deletion that this could be the test case for nuking the other 454. PianoDan (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I disagree with you, since the nominator has not stated the intent of it being a test nomination. The notion that other users should infer what the nominator "possibly" has meant, is not valid. Geschichte (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but definitely warranting the stub status.Gusfriend (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs more editing and fixes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TzarN64 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs a broader conversation than what is present here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's no reason for deletion, so I wish we knew what the nominator saw is at fault here. This singular article seems fine from my perspective; however, if there is a wish to look at these gene article holistically, I would not be opposed. Curbon7 (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2022 (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.