Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DNA Codon Table

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. whether to merge this into Genetic Code is an editorial decision that deosn't need an admin to enforce Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DNA Codon Table

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

Completely incomprehensible table with no context whatsoever. Without these, of no use in this encyclopaedia. No assertion of notability. No explanation of the term DNA Codon. No clue as to why this highly technical table is in wikipedia. Tagishsimon (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Later can consider editorial merge to one of the other codon-related articles. There is now context (sheesh, nom'ed within 4 minutes of creation ~~and you didn't even notify the author~~?). But also, the words "DNA" and "Codon" really do exactly describe what it is (we have articles at DNA and Codon). This codon mapping is covered in intro genetics and biochem couses. It's technical bare facts but hardly technical esoteric out-of-scope for Wikipedia. Actually it's a sister table to one in the GA genetic code article (the only difference is the type of genetic coding material being analyzed). I don't know if it should be re-merged back in there (or both tables split out?), but those are editorial decisions. The table contents themselves are recently discussed on Talk:Genetic code. DMacks (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did notify the author, actually. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - My bad...that edit appeared before the nom itself, I didn't look prior to that. DMacks (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi guys. This is the first time I write/edit a wiki page, so I will concede to your guidance on this matter. I noted the relative redundancy of the page with Genetic Code and my greater goal is actually to have a reference page for some basic bioinformatics information (i.e. DNA codons, amino acid pka, etc) that I (or anyone else working on similar things) can look up on when writing scripts or doing analyses. I thought of adding the table directly in the Genetic Code page, but we already have an RNA codon table there, which many think would be more relevant for the page since it's more of a biochemistry than a bioinformatics article. While there are DNA codon tables that can be found with google, I don't see why wikipedia shouldn't have it somewhere, since it's supposed to also serve as a place to quickly retrieve reference materials.Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Genetic code

This material is definitely appropriate material for Wikipedia. It's not highly technical; I'd expect this to be covered in the first semester of any teriary biology course, and perhaps in secondary biology courses.
I think both forward and reverse codon lookup tables belong in the Genetic code article. The article describes several salient features of the genetic code, such as its degeneracy, the fact that three codons mean stop rather than encoding an amino acid, and the tendency for amino acids with similar chemical properties to be encoded by similar codons. These features are most easily conveyed by presenting the codon tables. It's also easier to understand the prose discussing these concepts when the codon tables are present in the same article. I realise the current forward table is bulky – but see Talk:Genetic_code#Codon_table_layout for a solution to that.
This article has the same problems as Codon Dictionary, which I redirected to Genetic code for reasons described at Talk:Codon Dictionary: (1) We're encouraged to provide enough background or context for a reader to understand this as a stand-alone article (WP:PCR), rather than relying on links, but it's difficult to do so succinctly and without overwhelming the table itself or simply repeating Genetic code; and (2) There's not much to say about a codon table that's not already covered in Genetic code.

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Genetic code. Since essentially the same table is already there, the merge can be done by adding one sentence explaining the differences (i.e. T instead of U). -- Radagast 3 (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's incomprehensible to me too but I am not a biologist. I expect it will not be so to those who are. Woeful nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Merge oder redirect to Genetic code. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge: this is not an article unto itself, but the content clearly belongs somewhere on Wikipedia. -- BenTels (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is as basic to an encyclopedia as anything else, indeed as basic to life on earth as anything else; as the central organizing scheme of molecular biology, an article is appropriate. There is sufficient information at the head of the table to give the context. I can & will add some additional references about he historical development of the table. A merge is inappropriate, this is of central importance by itself, just as the periodic table is--in principle, that could be merged to Chemistry, whichwould make as much sense as merging this. DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this is essentially the same table as in genetic code, with U replaced by T. The historical material you describe belongs naturally in that article, and that article is probably analogous to periodic table in the way that Genetics is to Chemistry. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2010 (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.