Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molecular processors

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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular processors

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

Unreferenced original research. There are very few hits on Google and Google Scholar for "molecular processor". The concept clearly exists but doesn't seem to have achieved notability. The only references are to the author's own writings (which are not available to readers outside his university) and his website. Fails WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:N andy (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is obviously a cut and paste from some guy's PhD thesis or something. Unless someone can provide real sources to establish notability of this concept, it should be deleted. SnottyWong talk 00:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete, more reliable sources must be provided to establish notability --Rirunmot 00:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)

Delete, original research, as the references make clear. Hairhorn (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article not original research, though I must say it will be very hard to cite the inline citation since most sources don't cover the things in minute detail. We will definitely need some writers to help on the cybernetic mechanism verification part.

Question: has this subject reached notability as defined by wikipedia? From your comments I think not. A few people are talking about it, that's all. andy (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I see no actual news coverage on "molecular processors", what I see is coverage of molecular computers, biocomputers, and DNA computing, all of which already have wiki pages. Any non-OR content from this page could probably be merged to one of those pages. Barring that, this page needs a rewrite to purge it of original research. Hairhorn (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its notable enough to get news coverage. Dream Focus 01:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Looking at Google Books and Google Scholar, it appears to me that the concept is notable. On the first page of results from the book search I got:

William Henri Groverm, Microfluidic molecular processors for computation and analysis, University of California, Berkeley, 2006, 470 pages; and
Sergey Edward Lyshevski, Nano and molecular electronics handbook, CRC Press, 2007, ISBN 0849385288, 912 pages

The first page of the scholar search had:

David Margulies, Galina Melman, and Abraham Shanzer, A Molecular Full-Adder and Full-Subtractor, an Additional Step toward a Moleculator, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2006, 128 (14), pp 4865–4871, DOI: 10.1021/ja058564w
A Chiabrera et al, Physical limits of integration and information processing in molecular systems, 1989 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 22 1571-1579 doi: 10.1088/0022-3727/22/11/00
Jorge M. Seminario, Pedro A. Derosa, Luis E. Cordova, and Brian H. Bozard, "A Molecular Device Operating at Terahertz Frequencies: Theoretical Simulations," IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NANOTECHNOLOGY, VOL. 3, NO. 1, MARCH 2004
Nicholas G. Rambidi, Biomolecular computer: roots and promises, Biosystems, Volume 44, Issue 1, September 1997, Pages 1-15 doi:10.1016/S0303-2647(97)00031-2

It appears to me that the concept of molecular computing is notable enough that multiple people are writing books and journal articles about it. EastTN (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article as currently written is unquestionably original research - see the talk page and this edit. andy (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a problem with the article, then it can be fixed. You do not delete an article, if the subject matter is notable. That isn't how Wikipedia works. Dream Focus 02:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see that anyone calling to keep has explained how the topic of this article is differentiated from DNA computing or Molecular electronics. If it's the same as one of those, merge and redirect. If it's different from both, then delete this until there are sufficient sources—ones that cover this topic—to use to write an article. I don't doubt that molecular computing is gaining notability, but we don't need multiple articles on it. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense to merge the article with DNA computing? That seems to be the closest article in terms of content.EastTN (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. andy (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is different than Molecular electronics which "is an interdisciplinary theme that spans physics, chemistry, and materials science." Just like regular electronics includes many things other than just a processor, so it is with this. So I don't think it should go there. This may be the same thing is DNA computer. Are all methods to make a molecular processor based on using a DNA template? What's it called in all the scientific papers and patents? I see them calling it molecular computers as well as molecular processors. Dream Focus 18:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The big issue with this article is that it's written from a very narrow perspective by, and largely based on the work of, one person who thinks he owns the article. Merging will have to be done by a subject expert who is not the original author. Any takers? andy (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Although one recent edit, which restored the tabs at the top of the article, suggests that he may be starting to get it. I'm personally not qualified as an expert in this (or any related) field. If someone can find sources that are accessible on the web and accessible to the lay reader, I may be able to help with summarizing them and with general copy editing.EastTN (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — To get someone who knows if its the same thing, and what should be done with it, to participate. Dream Focus 18:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a bio-engineering article. I have delisted it from list of Computing-related deletion discussions and (lacking a suitable bio-engineering deletion category) have added a note to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 22:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample reliable and verifiable sources provided support the claim of notability for the subject and the article. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User:EastTN showing subject's meeting of inclusion criteria at WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:18, 21 December 2009 (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.