Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fizzy extraction (2nd nomination)


 * 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  08:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Fizzy extraction
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previously nominated for deletion but closed with no consensus. According to Google Scholar, the scientific paper in which this technique was described has been cited only 11 times since it was published in 2016. That is not notable. There is no evidence of notability here, and the creation of this Wikipedia article (by someone who appears to be the inventor of the technique or someone closely related to him) seems to be part of a self-promotional circle jerk for technique inventor Paweł Urban. TL;DR: 11 citations in 3 years is not notable, and minor coverage in a couple of specialist news sources (tantamount to coverage of a press release) is also inadequate evidence of notability. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm not seeing sufficient independent coverage to begin to satisfy WP:N or WP:NEOLOGISM. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2019 (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.