Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tobacco mosaic virus memory


 * 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Tobacco mosaic virus memory

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This misleading article seems to derive from the splash made from a few papers from 2006, but while undeniably cool, as far as I can tell this didn't lead anywhere, and it's not something you can buy. DOesn't seem of lasting notability. Mangoe (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  ~ Amkgp  💬  16:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - the broader concept is important, biological data storage. We already have articles on DNA based systems but this is an example of the broader biocomposite memory which is an important concept and one I vsbt find an article for. Can you try find somewhere to include this as the paper seems to have been relatively influential in terms of citations. I suggest redirect here as well https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_nanotechnology#:~:text=Plant%20viruses%20in%20nanotechnology,-Plant%20virus-based&text=Plant%20virus%20nanoparticles%20are%20non,by%20Raja%20muthuramalingam%20et%20al.&text=The%20capsids%20can%20be%20produced,a%20variety%20of%20heterologous%20systems. PainProf (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not biological storage per se. They simply used the virons as templates for conventional inorganic deposition. I did note the relatively large number of cites, but it appears more as a one-off demonstration at this point. Mangoe (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect - per above virus nanotechnology is an appropriate redirect. There is already some discussion of plant virus nanotechnology there. Per Mangoe's point this is just an example of that. PainProf (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Every scientific result does not merit its own page, and all this cites is the original research publication. Yeah, these guys did this thing, and it has relevance to others doing something similar, so it gets cited occasionally, but it isn't a notable application. Agricolae (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agricolae sums up most of my thoughts already on notability. I'll tack on though that this doesn't look useful for a redirect. It looks like it's just a WP:NEOLOGISM, and biological storage/memory would be the terms people would use if they were searching, not this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Virus nanotechnology. My very best wishes (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge Notability does not expire because all those papers are still there and the number of sources citing them and reporting them has increased since; it never goes down. Insofar as the specific technique may have been generalised, My very best wishes's suggestion is sensible per WP:ATD-M. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just one non-notable (never-notable) experiment, a proof of concept, and contrary to the claim made at the end, there doesn't seem to be any continuing research (it has been 14 years, and not a single one of the authors have cited this paper in a followup paper that I am seeing). It has been cited on average about three times a year, almost all in reviews that, by their nature, cite all research papers deemed remotely relevant to their broader topics, and in the majority of cases reviews that have nothing to do with this specific application (e.g. one is on 'unusual things people are doing with TMV', another is on 'turning bacteria into computers'). This application was not notable when it was published, it is not notable now, and there is no reason to believe it will ever be notable in the future. WP:ATD-M says material in short articles can be merged, but that doesn't mean it should be merged when it isn't noteworthy. Agricolae (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Virus nanotechnology. The stated application is one of numerous possible nanotechnological applications of virus particles, and the material here will fit in well there as a small example. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Sure "notability does not expire" but this was never notable in the first place. Very specific technique that does not warrant an article and is not covered independently. Reywas92Talk 20:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete It's not currently notable by itself. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON, but this isn't the place for a crystal ball. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The experiment seems worth a mention at Tobacco mosaic virus, but the term "tobacco mosaic virus memory" itself appears to be a neologism without sufficient uptake. Hence no call for a redirect. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:31, 7 July 2020 (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.