Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2 Base Encoding (2nd nomination)


 * 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. John254 00:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

2 Base Encoding
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Lacks context, not written in an encyclopedic tone, appears to be a personal essay, hasn't been edited in several days, may consist of original research/synthesis of published material, references do not work, and needs attention from an expert on the subject. I'd say that all of that adds up to a valid reason for putting this to AfD. h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 20:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Found a couple of sources that mention "2-base encoding" but this needs attention from someone knowledgable in the subject area. --h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 20:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 *  Comment Keep It's only been there 11 days. A bit soon to be deleting it because it "hasn't been edited in several days". Same nom also nominated it less than a week ago, only 2 days after it was created. That seems rather extreme. It may still turn out to be rubbish, but let's give it a fair shake. Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I think that's a completely invalid reason to leave a poor quality article that may fail Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in the main namespace. Also, the tag on the page explicitly states "Consider not tagging with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days". It's been five since the last edit.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 20:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion, but beg to differ. I always think it a shame to delete any article that is on a notable subject, however bad it is. If it does not improve in a week or two, then it can always be stripped down to a stub. 2 base encoding is notable per etc.Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. AfD is not cleanup and no reason for not having an article on this topic has been given. --Itub (talk) 09:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, the text needs some work but its a notable topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP. It needs a couple of changes but the content is fair and accurately describes the newest emerging technology in genetics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctaplin85 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and Move - The title of this article refers to a particular technique for sequencing by ligation -- I think this belongs within the sequencing by ligation article (oh, look, there's already a subsection on it there). A large part of the material here is actually unrelated to "2 base encoding" -- steps 1-4 are unrelated to sequencing by ligation and instead refer to the techniques used before the sequencing stage to amplify clonal molecules. I've already created a red link to emulsion PCR within the DNA sequencing article, you might consider creating this article with some of this content. This way, instead of describing ABI's particular technique for sequencing, you will have encyclopedia describing some general techniques use (sequencing by ligation, emulsion PCR). But because of conflict of interest reasons, I'll try to refrain from touching these articles. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 21:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - A notable topic, and can be polished nicely. – ClockworkSoul 09:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep current status is acceptable. Any possible merge can be worked out on the talk page. There is no reason not to have expanded articles dealing in appropriate referenced detail with the important techniques, but the specialists need to distinguish that from having an article on every new thing that is published. DGG (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a case where the subject is notable and encyclopedic, but the article itself needs work.  And this is not the appropriate venue for cleanup.  (jarbarf) (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.