Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PRIME (PRobe Incorporation Mediated by Enzymes)


 * 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. There is no consensus here on the notabilty of this article. Davewild (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

PRIME (PRobe Incorporation Mediated by Enzymes)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not yet notable. The key paper has been cited only 13 times, which in a very highly cited field like this is trivial.  DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I think this one is actually notable. PRIME seems to have been originally developed back in 2010, as presented in this paper and it's been noted and presented in several textbooks since, see here, here, and here for examples. It also seems to have an extended acronym of ID-PRIME that Ting's team uses for interaction-dependent experiments. There's an American Chemical Society news article on it here. And another journal news article on it here. And a Laboratory News article on it here. Seems like more than enough to keep. Silver  seren C 08:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This may be obscure in Wikipedia terms, but it is a technique that is well-known in the field, has plenty of citations and mentions outside of the early article, and maybe it is known somewhat for its promise, and somewhat for its developer, Alice Y. Ting. But to say it should be deleted based on low citations for a single primary source article and ignore everything else about it seems contradictory to how notability is established on Wikipedia. MicroPaLeo (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete - appears to be a case of too soon as well as original research. It may hold promise, but who knows? Bearian (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:39, 28 December 2014 (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.