Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helicos single molecule fluorescent sequencing

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helicos single molecule fluorescent sequencing

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod contested without explanation. This reads like a paper to submit to a scientific journal, a work of synthesis based on recent original research. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be kept but we have to work on a couple of things; I am concerned about the copyright of the content. and it sounds like an ad. it is NOT a research article as these machines can (or could) be bought, and we will likely return to this technology in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahogny (talk • contribs)

The above comment has been transferred here from the talk page. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are sufficient sources (though only 2 inline citations). Article doesn't read like a full paper, but like a rather technical person's slideshow explaining an advanced topic to students. This may well be too technical for typical WP readers, but the solution is more inline citations, simplification where possible and more introductory writing. In other words: normal editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article reads like a "white paper", that is a document produced by a company to give prospective customers technical information about a product. Indeed, the figure included looks like it was derived from one of Helicos' white papers [[1]]. That said, the article is mostly a description of the sequencing process with little hype. I agree with Chiswick, there are sufficient sources but inline citations could be improved.Mark viking (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if it's kept, I'd remove the word "Helicos" from the title. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but then merge to Single molecule fluorescent sequencing, which should be the title. (some of this could be abbreviated as standard to all methods of sequencing, but that's an editorial decision.) DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.