Talk:Quantitative dot blot

Jiandizhang, as I said in response to you on my Talk page, you can't create an article based on a single primary source because the notability of the new method hasn't been established (see WP:Notability). You also appear to have a conflict of interest - I noticed that the authors are trying to commercialize the product described in the paper. I would have requested Speedy Deletion of this article because of its obvious promotional nature except "quantitative dot blot" is also the general term for the method of quantifying classic dot blots. After removal of the material promoting the new method, the remaining material should be merged into Dot blot. CatPath (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cathpath: If only you can honestly claim the 96-channel dot blot apparatus could fulfill what we have described in the article, then the QDB method I described here should be deleted. You should notice I have deleted all the relevant information about QDB plate. Indeed, it is the method I want to share with the scientific world. It is to my benefit to promote QDB method, but it is to a greater benefit to the scientific world to introduce QDB method to replace the outdated Dot blot method and Western blot method. Do not you agree? By the way, the article you cited is also single sources, and no apparatus was used in the article. Please respond to my questions, otherwise I will undo your change.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiandizhang (talk • contribs) 20:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

   The QDB method should be deleted because of its lack of notability, according to Wikipedia guidelines. As I said above, more evidence that the new method is notable is required before it deserves an article on Wikipedia. I have started a Discussion on the Talk page of the article. Please continue the discussion there. Yes, I provided only a single citation, but the general method of quantitative dot blot using the classic dot-blot apparatus is well established, and I can easily provide more references. CatPath (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Cathpath: You provide an article without any apparatus support. Why you would think it is more relevant than the QDB article I cited? The key difference between QDB and your understanding of the quantitative dot blot analysis is the direct quantification of the individual dot, not scanning the dot in a film, which made a huge difference.

It seems you are confident you understand quantitative dot blot analysis. This paper I cited has been reviewed by 6 reviewers worldwide. Can you make your own judgement after careful reading of the article if this method is different from the article your provided, or the 96 channel you are talking about in the previous discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiandizhang (talk • contribs) 21:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jiandizhang, you are missing the key point. The method you provide is not notable. It would be impossible for Wikipedia to have an individual article about every new method that gets published in scientific journals. Your method must fulfill Wikipedia's concept of notability. If you're not satisfied with my reference, then fine. Let's delete the entire article. (And by the way, you don't need to expose X-ray film to read the signal on a dot blot. Many lab have imagers that quantify each dot directly.) CatPath (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cathpath: OK, I guess my article can qualify as a reference in the quantitative dot blot entry, yes, you mentioned an interesting point about quantify the signal using an imaginer. I guess that is exactly the issue we try to address in the article. Any image conversion is a subjective process, therefore lose its objectivity. Trust me, I know. Jiandizhang (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiandizhang (talk • contribs) 21:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]