Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carbon film coating


 * 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   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Carbon film coating

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

"Carbon film coating" and "carbide derived carbon" are generic names, and despite the source saying Ali Erdemir and others invented carbide derived carbon, we already have an article on this at Carbide-derived carbon Dougweller (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the above comment. - abhilashkrishn talk 14:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep That article is about the coating, that is made of carbon film, not just about "carbide derived carbon". The article you refer to Carbide-derived carbon is just about the carbon itself, while the coating is a new development that can have important use in machines, motor engines etc.Akocsg (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * CommentYou'll need to find sources to show it meets WP:Notability. So far you haven't done this. We cover coatings at Carbide-derived carbon. This might be mentioned there. Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Some sources: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 I think these should be suited.Akocsg (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability per nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC).
 * Weak Keep. There's no doubt that the references cited by  are sufficient to establish notability.  The only question is whether there is enough material to be worth a stand-alone article, or if Carbide-derived_carbon covers the topic adequately.  It's a close call, but I'm going to say breaking this out into its own article makes sense.  Part of my reasoning is that Carbide-derived_carbon is a highly technical and difficult to read bit of writing.  A simpler treatment here might be valuable.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not keep. WP:NN fails.  AHLM13  ✉ 11:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 09:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Delete and redirect to Carbide-derived carbon. Insufficient justification to fork out this particular material when a full article on all the carbon materials exists.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  13:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 02:40, 20 June 2014 (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.