Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferrolens


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Ferrolens

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Only 2 exact-word search results on Google Scholar, both of which are publications written by someone whose last name is very similar to the article creator's username (Markoulakis / ). See Articles for deletion/Quantum field of magnet for context. —  Newslinger  talk   17:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —  Newslinger   talk   17:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

*Keep Whereas this related device magnetic viewing film has a lot of science references? Yah Right!! Antigap (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC) Also Newsfaker you are lying. It is called also ferrocell with thousands of instances plenty enough of references (you should also count the Hele-Shaw cell references on google since the ferrocell is A TYPE Hele-Shaw CELL . MOST IMPORTANT YOUR reasoning FOR YOUR AFD is an attempt for outing WP:OUTING WP:PRIVACY WP:HA AND THEREFORE THIS PARADE OF YOURS IS IRRELEVANT AND THIS AFD OFFICIALLY INVALID AND A VALID REASON FOR AN UNDELETION REQUEST JUST IN CASE... Antigap (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC) — Antigap (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete WP:TOOSOON at absolute best. (There are a few more GS results for "Ferrocell", but a sizable fraction of those are false positives.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. As an alternative, the article could be renamed to Ferocell which does have greater technical and popular coverage.  Looking closely though, this is something quite niche that has been highly promoted by its creators, promotion which includes this article.  Without wishing to out anyone, it seems quite likely that the article is further promotional material generated by the inventors.  Another possibility would be a merge (as a short mention) into ferrofluid which is the basis behind this invention.  Lithopsian (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, salt and Redirect to Ferrofluid as WP:Too soon. Has not yet achieved notability, with little notice in science data bases. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC).
 * Notability is not inherited, and WP:OUTING specifically permits disclosure of information other editors post on Wikipedia. The user selected their own username, and also cited Markoulakis's publications in the article. —  Newslinger   talk   00:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

What a pathetic arguement and reasoning ha ha ha ha! So since your nick name is Newslinger I can assume that your real name is Rumpelstilzchen! ha hahaa ha! Antigap (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ferrofluid per Lithopsian's comments. Bakazaka (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't see any content worth merging. Writing from scratch would be a better approach. WP:UNDUE also applies: we're talking about a niche within a niche that has so far attracted essentially no attention in the scientific community. Nice pictures do not encyclopedia content make. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Antigap indef blocked as a sockpuppet.  Tera TIX  01:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak merge (don't think I've ever written that before) to ferrofluid. Based on literature uptake, this is only very slightly less WP:TOOSOON than the previous issue; overall application might however justify a sentence & main publication ref in ferrofluid - thresholds for mention inside a larger topic being a lot more relaxed than for standalone articles, after all. (Trying hard not to have the author's behaviour drive me to an automatic delete. Nice going there.) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ferrofluid. As above it's tempting because of the user's appalling behaviour to say delete. Theroadislong (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the article creator's conduct is more than sufficient evidence that the content they generated is not trustworthy. What's the point of merging only to have to rewrite what was merged? Whether or not this topic warrants a sentence and a footnote in ferrofluid is a question we can resolve at Talk:ferrofluid after we're done here, I'd say. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete WP is not news outlet to generate coverage for novel, questionable inventions. WP:TOOSOON Graham Beards (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete hard to disagree with XOR&#39;easter here.  Tera TIX  10:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete As a person trained in the wet sciences (biochemistry), I read this article three times, looked at the Wikilinks, and still do not have a clue what it is about, nor potential function(s). Too technical/obscure for Wikipedia despite the pretty pictures. David notMD (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete/Redirect under WP:TNT. Merging runs into issues with tone and WP:DUE without a significant rewrite.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:33, 9 August 2018 (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.