Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exponential assembly


 * 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 - patented processes and items should have sources, and this one has no third-party verifiable sources to substantiate the claims made here. Krakatoa Katie  11:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Exponential assembly

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I was reluctant to PROD this, as it is a "patented process", and may require context provided by an expert. I'm not sure under which notability guideline this falls. Weak delete, pending opinions of scientific minds. Xoloz 16:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.   —User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 16:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If it's actually patented, then there's no excuse for not having a source. Mandsford 19:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - It looks like notability is being established via synthesis. Notice that the only source for the subject of the article comes from the company that allegedly holds the patent.  Everything else is about exponential growth (which is notable on its own.)  Thus, they are trying to use the notability of exp growth to slip the article's subject through.  I may even nominate via speedy delete as this could be some sneaky advertisement.  Yet, it is better to be careful and see what others have to say.Brusegadi 20:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete (no salt, no redirect) as an editor somewhat well-read in the area (though no to the point of expertise). To the best of my knowledge, "exponential assembly" is not recognized as a notable term of art by any textbook or credible academic source. The Drexler statement is accurate, but doesn't support the inclusion of this article since Drexler used different terminology to describe similar concepts. Weak delete as a protologism which is not widely used by the nanotech community. — xDanielx T/C 21:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but disambiguate. Notability and verifiability as a term is established by peer reviewed scientific journals BUT it appears the term "exponential assembly" also is also used in other scientific contexts (nuclear fuels and biology amongst others). The article could be expanded to cover the range of uses of the term (including this one) beyond a mere dictionary definition. Dbromage  [Talk]  23:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your observation on the different uses of the term, but I couldn't find any unaffiliated academic articles which treat it as a term of art the way Zyvex does. The first, second, and fourth are authored by Zyvex affiliates, while the third, fifth, and sixth use "exponential assembly" generally for other purposes and not as a term of art. I haven't investigated past that - if you found something I didn't please let me know. — xDanielx T/C 00:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions.   —  Dbromage  [Talk]  23:37, 26 August 2007 (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.