Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inchrosil


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Inchrosil

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be an advertisement for a new product. It is written in promotional language, and multiple sources are listed, but as far as I can tell none of them mention the subject of the article. It may also be original research. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable, promotional, original research. This novel technology claims to be inorganic DNA based on silicon which I think is nonsense (at best WP:FRINGE): it certainly is not supported by independent reliable sources.  It was supposedly invented in 2006 and as of this morning the only independent references were published in 1974.  The references added later today are all generic citations for the terms used in the article such as "chemistry" and "chromosome" and appear to have nothing to do with this subject -- indeed most of them also predate the alleged invention.  There are no independent references to this topic in Google Scholar or Google Books.  The article has been entirely created by  who has edited no other article and whose username is somewhat reminiscent of the name of the company that makes the device, threellop.  Deltahedron (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The same user has actually edited two more closely related articles last August, Threellop and Threellop Nanotechnology. Both were speedy deleted as articles about a company that don't indicate its significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting -- the latter matches the user name User:3ln even more closely, of course. So a pretty clear history of trying to use Wikipedia to promote this non-notable device.  Deltahedron (talk) 07:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * it is not true, inchrosil is a electronic device with different patents and several papers in spanish and english (you can see in references of article). Principal objective of 3ln or llopis siblings (that is login), IT IS NOT A PROMOTION, our objective is to publish this new way in a DNA computing. Because, DNA computing is a new area, exist a lot of information about, but in organic material. Our technology uses all these knowledges but in inorganic material. You can see, for example different techniques of Dr. Leonard Max Adleman (leonard Adleman) or Dr. Amos about new system in DNA computing.


 * Also, if Kim kardashian (other artist or something, Apple or other company, ipad, etc) have a page in wikipedia, why not inchrosil.......it's a scientific page. what happen??? some people yes, and other no. --3ln (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3ln (talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me repeat that what is needed is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is spelled out in detail at that page, but "significant" means more than just a passing mention in a newspaper article or press release; "reliable sources" means sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, such as peer-reviewed journals and books by established experts; and "independent" means by someone with no vested interest in the subject.  So far the subject does not qualify.  If it is indeed notable in the broad sense, then sooner or later other people will write about it.  On the last point, Other stuff exists may help with that argument.  Deltahedron (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * for this reason, the article is not finish, because i'm writing all skills and references about inchrosil, for example, i have not explain core of inchrosil, it is the demostration hamiltonian path problem (version Profesor Adleman with organic DNA) by inorganic material. Please, let me finish the article and remove that ad. --3ln (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If the article is in such an unfinished state that input from other editors can be of no help in writing it, then it should not be in the encyclopaedia at all. It should be moved to user space, for example at User:3ln/Inchrosil. Any article in the main encyclopaedia needs to demonstrate notability of the subject and verify its statements by citing reliable sources. It seems almost certain that User:3ln has a close connection with this subject and a probable conflict of interest. If so, they should ask other editors for a second opinion before attempting to return this material to the main article space.  Deltahedron (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Why InChroSil page should be deleted? this afternoon i have wrote all independent verification of governments, universities and important research centres about inchrosil. On the other hand, notability!!! MIT and brown university said and wrote both verification reports, where they said that inchrosil is clever and amazing. We have not problem to show these reports. What you propose? delete this page and In future i will create new with same name - Inchrosil - ???. i don't understand, please let me know. Also, it's possible only i will write about hamiltonian path version by inchrosil in this article and it will be finished (only few days). Not exist  conflict of interest because, exist a lot of people write article in wikipedia about their scientific work (99.9 %), directly by their hands or by means of co-workers or subordinates in their research groups. it's true....it's more common read bibliographies about one professor of one specific university (and this professor is not important in science), is it conflict interest? in my opinion, Yes, but these pages don't delete.--Jose daniel llopis (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is finished, no more data can be add it, also references or corrections.--Jose daniel llopis (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Why InChroSil page should be deleted? "
 * Because it shouldn't be kept. It is the author's WP:BURDEN to produce a credible, notable article. If it can't achieve that much, then it should be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is not about DNA computing. It is about silicon computing, inspired by DNA. Those two things are different. The confusion between them is one of the biggest problems in making this article unreadable, and unacceptable. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:FRINGE. Their whitepaper spends 2 pages discussing what type of lab coats they like to wear. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Come now, they are talking about DNA profiling and the materials and services they would like to sell. To describe the lab coats and gloves used in forensic work isn't a fashion statement.  It is, however, clearly sef-promotion and I agree with the FRINGE.  Deltahedron (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)




 * delete for being badly written. It is near-impossible to work out just what this thing is. If I've done that correctly, then much of this article is an irrelevance that's only there to give some sort of kudos by association.
 * The writing is awful. It's clearly hugely promotional in tone for one particular group's innovation. Now it's possible that this innovation is notable and important, but if it is so, it's the author's burden to make a clear, readable article that explains this. If instead they're using WP to promote their development, then we have to find a way through the mire of self-interest, dubious and irrelevant claims. I'm just not prepared to do that for an article this impenetrable.
 * If I do understand this correctly, the idea is for a new paradigm in small-scale cellular digital logic processors, built out of conventional silicon and inspired by some aspects of genetic behaviour. Such processors and cellular automata have a long and notable history, and have potential applications in a range of fields needing massively parallel processing of certain classes of mathematical problem. This device has an additional factor, in that it appears to be biomimetically inspired. That's an additional valid point of interest. However, such a device becomes a silicon computer, for doing a silicon computer's work. It has no special affinity for "genetic processing" or the storage of DNA profiles. The Uses to Inchrosil section is a gross violation of WP:CRYSTAL. It's also doubtful if such a CPU / memory would ever be commercially advantageous against the brute force of cheap conventional computing. Given the overblown claims being made throughout this, and the poor state of the core of the article otherwise, I'm not in a generous mood towards keeping it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Being badly written isn't a reason to delete, although being FRINGE/CRYSTAL is. Deltahedron (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * When it's so badly written as to make the article unintelligible, to the point where a potential editor can't even tell reliably what the article is claiming, then that's enough reason to get rid of it. The original author might be able to fix it, but the rest of us are stymied by it. We shouldn't delete because a bad article hasn't been fixed yet, but we ought to delete if a bad article can't be fixed. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Question - That the article has severe COI and self-promotion troubles is obvious. However I'm not sure of the reason given for deletion. My question is: Has anybody looked at the references -the Spanish, first 11 ones? What do we know about their coverage? They could be well enough to pass WP:GNG, but it's hard to tell without looking them. (Also -incidentally- being a fringe theory is not reason for deletion: notable fringe theories are still notable.) -- Cycl o pia talk  00:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Not it is promotional article, because today, Threellop don't exist, it is closed, the reason this big crisis, don't exit new ideas. Principal objetive is to explain this new way to compute and share that knowledge with all world, because today, all people use von neumann architecture and this technology use teory of graphs and formal language. DNA computing is new type of computing using different nucloetide of DNA, more research groups use organic DNA and others  research groups use mathematicals equations with nucleotides, for this reason it is wrong to use silicon computing, because in this new area exist new ways to solve it.

Exist a lot of machines with use that technology, principally in governments. This technology has several certification by MIT and Brown University.

I'm disappointed with wikipedia, because i thought that wikipedia was other thing (it is more objective and impartial), but that, it is real world, nothing is impartial, it's a pity. Because not all people have open mind for new ideas and somebody don't understand some concept, but it means that concept or theory is FRINGE or not correct. On the other hand, it's possible this article would be delete, but the idea can't delete..... --Jose daniel llopis (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Mostly en:WP is about communicating in English. If an article can't achieve that, it doesn't belong here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * English is not a problem in this article, i think so, it's other thing, i can read before. On the other hand, WP is multilingual, this a goal in this encyclopedia. No only in English, Spanish or other language.--89.240.240.223 (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia is multilingual, but this is the English language Wikipedia. If the language skills aren't adequate (and believe me, they're not), then an article doesn't belong here. es:Inchrosil would be a better home for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No delete: I think all article is written in english, scientific english, but finally in English. On the other hand, your words about "it is better in es:inchrosil", sound very bad, belive me. Because only some references is written in spanish, i said before, rest of article is in English. Rest of comments, i think they are more partial about one editor. This editor is leader to delete this article. In my opinion, I would not like delete this article. Because i think is more interesting for WP. I know this article is very complicate to understand, because mix different scientific areas, biotechnology, electronic and mathematics, but no cause to delete it. --89.240.240.223 (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC) — 89.240.240.223 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No delete: In reference the question before, i have checked the article of semiconductor times, because i have subscription in this electronic magazine, it is true. My spanish is not very good, but i can read some references in this article, and they seem true. My opinion is don't delete article. --89.240.240.223 (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)  Removed as a repeated !vote from the same IP address
 * No delete: Congratulations siblings llopis for that invention, i'm phd at genetics in a genetic research institution at USA. It's interesting the article, because mix different concepts and areas. I'm very suprised and my opinion is NOT DELETE.--Daisy-konovov (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC) — Daisy-konovov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No delete per original: all time, i have used wikipedia in my work, also other tools at internet (google, etc). This morning i have read the article, it's very original and simple the idea. I know it's complex to understand it, as writes Daisy-konovov, the article mix different knowledge and it is a new idea. NO DELETE.--Jonathan Sutherwald (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC) — Jonathan Sutherwald (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. To the closing administrator: Please note that (along with the apparent sockpuppet invasion above) the comments signed "3ln" and the comments signed "Jose daniel llopis" earlier are all from the same user account as each other. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Non notable product. - MrOllie (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2012 (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.