Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ball-pen probe


 * 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. But given significant quality issues, some maintenance tags are needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ball-pen probe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unclear notability, most of the journal articles referenced have as an author the inventor, who is also the creator/primary contributor to this article. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Tricky. On the one hand, that's a lot of valid sources, and apart from some over-illustration (and grammar), that's a very well-constructed article. On the other hand, the COI is strong in that one - the inventor and main page editor features in 24 of the 38 refs, and at least three others seem to be theses from their graduates; and honestly, starting an article with "X is a novel technique for..." raises immediate warning flags about WP:TOOSOON. I think non-familiarity with the field prevents me from assessing this one correctly. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Users Adamekjiri: Dear users, I agree that COI is strong in this case because I am the main contributor to this article as well as the inventor of this probe technique :). On the other side, I believe this also helps to this article to be as correct as possible. There are many students and other colleagues who appreciate this overview. I agree that we can remove novel, because it is already more than 10 years since the first experiment. 17:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC+2:00)


 * Keep, but seriously trim. A lot of the references fail WP:INDY, but I feel that the refs listed (as of now) at 20 and 22 are enough to show that this has been used by multiple independent research groups who published nontrivial data using it, that is as close as a scientific instrument can get to "notable".
 * This being said,, it is not acceptable to use Wikipedia as a repository for instruction manuals of your lab. It is visible that the article required a great deal of work from your part, but most of that was wasted if the only intention was to have it on Wikipedia. We simply do not operate as a university webpage.
 * Images such as File:ELM_12603_temporal_evolution.png have nothing to do on a general encyclopedia page, nor have the exact magnetic fields used at each institution, and the whole article is a bit heavy on the WP:DUEWEIGHT side. The probe was invented by Jiří Adámek strikes me as slightly WP:POV ("being the first to use" and "inventing" are not in my opinion synonyms; I would guess the other research groups have gone to great lengths to replicate the instrumentation in a different manner).
 * I will try to give a good clean-up the page over the weekend, but don't wait on me if you want to cast a !vote. Tigraan Click here to contact me 17:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Current ref 33 also seems to be from an independent work group. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The number of papers might be reduced, if you think. However, in this case: The probe was invented by Jiří Adámek and first time used as well. I have spent quite a lot of time to design the article:). Please, keep at least the scientific part the same as it is. On the other side, if the article will be significantly modified because of some Wiki rules then it is better to delete all :). 21:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC+2:00) Adamekjiri
 * , some misapprehensions there. # Wikipedia articles are intended to provide a summary and overview over a topic, not a manual or in-depth coverage; thus, condensation and abstraction are the norm, and this article is excessively detailed at the moment. # The point of WP articles is not to provide an outlet for what you consider the best-constructed treatment, but what by consensus is suitable for the WP format; thus, anything contributed WILL be altered by any number of editors, and you don't get to decree that it's either your version or nothing. # Lastly, you being the inventor and principal user of the device does not give you any special say over the article - to the contrary, it means you should take a less active hand in it than others (the best thing to show that a thing is WP:NOTABLE is that it is written about by someone other than the originator/inventor, you see...). - So please don't shoot yourself in the foot now with WP:OWNERSHIP actions. It appears to me that with some modifications this may become a fine article, but it's likely not going to look exactly like what you planned. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that modification by user can improve the version of this article. However, I believe that the modification of the scientific part also requires deep knowledge of the plasma physics. This is kind of "overview" because the probe were used at different ways under the different plasma condition, which is important to understand the probe technique and correctly present it. This why I have putted all my knowledge here on wikipedia to give some "overview" how this "new" probe technique works. Unfortunately, it is still difficult to provide simple scientific model for the physics behind, which is maybe what you expect. I would be happy if somebody else will contribute or improve this article. 12:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC+2:00) Adamekjiri


 * Update: I did some heavy trimming. There might be still a few too many links, but I hope the article is now (1) at a reasonable size and (2) understandable for someone with a decent background in electronics/electromagnetism and willing to follow the plasma physics links.
 * I apologize for my previous post, which was quite aggressive for no good reason. Your article had all the red flags of "lone researcher with poor English posts their pet project on Wikipedia", and then it usually takes some time to explain the new editor how we operate (we require evidence of notability to keep articles, so a one-person project rarely qualifies), and even more time to search for something that can be saved in the article, before the whole thing goes to trash 90% of the time. I looked through your version with a prejudiced mood at first, and that mood permeated in my posting. Otherwise, would you be so kind as to check the article? There are a few points where I think a specific reference is needed, and you probably know which article has it; also, I had to simplify in a few places, and you might want to check I did not write anything that is wrong or misleading. I think I understand enough of plasma physics for the rewrite, but I may be wrong. (If you want to discuss about the article, please answer at Talk:Ball-pen probe rather than here.) Tigraan Click here to contact me 19:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: While the article could use some work (way too many citations in multiple spots, excessive detail in others, etc) I think it is notable and a useful article to have. At the very least, the page creator put significant effort into it, even if they do have a significant COI. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article is worth keeping because it's notable. It needs work admittedly but it does not need WP:TNT. --  Dane  talk  01:01, 24 September 2017 (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.