Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bubble laser


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Star  Mississippi  02:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Bubble laser

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Classic example of WP:TOOSOON. Article is based upon a Jan 2024 paper which made a minor splash with popular science blogs and journals. There is no true evidence of notability, this type of article is not what Wikipedia is for. The topic could be returned to in a year if many others copy it. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: The WP:GNG is the way we determine notability. Simply that a topic is new does not preclude it from being notable. Regarding the one-year test, "Once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. -- WP:NTEMP" Therefore, I believe there is no need for a year-long wait as you suggest, because the subject meets the GNG. I will substantiate that below:
 * This topic has recieved significant coverage (full-length articles) in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. These include:
 * "Bubble lasers can be sturdy and sensitive" in Physics Today, a publication of the American Institute of Physics
 * "A Soap Bubble Becomes a Laser" in Physics magazine, by the American Physical Society
 * "Soap bubbles transform into lasers" in Physics World by the Institute of Physics (UK)
 * "Tiny lasers can be made from soap bubbles" in New Scientist
 * I believe that these sources provide "true evidence of notability" as specified in the GNG. I don't think there are extra subject-specific criteria that would apply to this article. HenryMP02 (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are citing popular science articles not full fledged referred articles. If there were 30 arXiv by others already then that would indicate that the scientific community considered it valid and notable, without that it is classic WP:TOOSOON. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Draftify, there is just one scientific article and several pop science retellings of it, and it's too soon, as already mentioned, to establish its notability. Artem.G (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't WP:GNG apply to the topic? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Answered my own question, WP:SUSTAINED should be satisfied here. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.