Keep The source is from a peer reviewed article in a respected journal. The gene is conserved, therefore evolution knows it's notable. It's just taking scientific researchers a little longer to figure this out. --Paul (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Agreed. But this doesn't exclude the fact that some papers do. I would argue that each species and gene is notable enough to deserve an article. Eventually there will be multiple sources for each. Science is just a little slow. BTW, I've added some more refs to the article, will add more content in time. --Paul (talk) 08:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to NKX2-2, which is the only article that links to it at present. Scientific researchers already know what it does: it regulates the expression of Nkx2-2. Google Scholar gives 7 hits, so it does seem to be have some minor notability, but its function can't be understood independently of Nkx2-2 and it would therefore be more sensible to include it in that article. The body text of both articles is short at the moment so a merged article wouldn't be long. Perhaps every human gene that codes for a protein is worthy of a separate article, but perhaps not every stretch of non-coding DNA that is transcribed to RNA. --Qwfp (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
