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 Delete, due to original research and notability concerns. Davewild (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TAK Tiles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested PROD (see article talk page). I believe this article discusses a non-notable advance, possibly being a violation of WP:NOR. In addition, there are conflict of interest issues -- the original author was a single-purpose author, and the IP address contesting the prod traces back to the Stanford lab where the originators of the concept work. RayAYang (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia's rules and all as you are, but the system was accepted by the reviewers for the 14th International Meeting on DNA Computing who are experts in the topic and that justifies notability. I think its a significant system, and even if you delete it for now, its significance will be seen with time anyways. There is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules which says that "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it" and I thought I was doing Wikipedia a favor by not deleting something I think is meaningful for development of both Wikipedia and DNA computing. Anyways, you know better, I won't argue if you want deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.163.93 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It seems unlikely that this algorithm has seen much use, given that it is too new and hasn't been published in any journal. By the look of it, only an abstract has been written, and the rest has only been presented in oral form and is published in written form on Wikipedia before any other place (see WP:NOR why this is a grounds for deletion). Narayanese (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. -- Whpq (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete or, ideally, someone would move and expand the article in to a general discussion of error detection applied to DNA computing. This particular topic can not hold up to WP:N or WP:RS just because it is so new. Also, while the article gives a good overview of the issue (good enough for a section in Error_detection#Applications??), it does not explicitly define what the TAK tile is. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2008 (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.