Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biofunctionalisation


 * 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. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Biofunctionalisation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article lacks context or sources. Andrew327 19:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep A search for sources under the American English spelling "biofunctionalization" shows that several books have been written on this very topic, such as Biofunctionalization of nanomaterials, Volume 1, Biofunctionalization of Polymers and their Applications and Biofunctionalization of Carbon Nanostructures Through Enzyme Immobilization in Colloidal Silica. The first two of these are by major scientific publishers. This is clearly a notable scientific topic, so the article should be expanded and referenced, rather then being deleted.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  20:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added three reliable sources (two books, one journal) to the article and there are a lot more where that came from. This is a a highly notable topic, with 3,590 hits on Google Scholar for "Biofunctionalization" and 225 for the less common "Biofunctionalisation". Google books yields more than 3,000 hits. Given the notability, even a minimal stub like this is worth keeping for development. Lack of context is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem. --Mark viking (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough reliable sources seem to exist (see collapsed list below). --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  21:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep – medical implants are examples of biofunctionalized materials. Furthermore there are a number of WP:MEDRS compliant secondary sources that review this applciation and hence this subject is clearly notable. Boghog (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2013 (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.