Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intimate Contact Induced Surface Separation (ICISS)


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Intimate Contact Induced Surface Separation (ICISS)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested prod. Unremarkable concept. "Intimate Contact Induced Surface Separation" -wiki shows only three unique results, and they're all from the same author. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research/vanity publishing. Non-notable. andy (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Searching shows this is not notable, and the article appears to be written by author of the apparently uncited paper on which the article is based. -- 202.124.75.44 (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing except self-published sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete - Per WP:Self, as noted by others above. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as lacking independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as it presents original useful data. It may take a long time until the apparently novel procedure is used and cited in other research works. It should be inked to microwave radiation as an additional application since wiki has an educational purpose as well. Researchers are often inspired by novel demonstrated methods. It inspired me to use for paint like substance removal from a plastic without having to apply any substances on the surface, without having to scratch the plastic surface. Novel demonstrated procedure shown on wiki do nothing but help internet users and further trust respect wiki as a source of information and inspiration. Flexibility is a virtue, please consider for keeping the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.97.236.116 (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — 78.97.236.116 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - searching surface ... separation we found this - great, works for us...fresh concept too bad the original authors did not invest to patent it, useful, wide applications beyond the ones offered as example. We applied in other areas we can't discolse at this time but it works very well. rare somebody publish new ideas without making money, it is no advertising . Yes, why not keep it for public, we should all say thanks, we do here in our medical lab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.91.94 (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — 188.24.91.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - we found it published in print Bulletin, presented at Animal Science and Biotech international conference 2011 and in print ISSN 1843-5262 vol 68 page 437. Great work good for medical field too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.91.94 (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — 188.24.91.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: contributors might want to read Notability in order to better understand the issues here. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep very notable,remarcable, novel. If anybody can add references please help the article to stay . Wiki has good rules as to prevent abuses but also has to have the ability to recocgnize the value of information. I see it as a ready to use know how. It is just a mater of time many will use. Wiki needs to adjust the policy, police attitude is good without excess ;-) I vote KEEP IT, SHOULD STAY HERE. It took me like an hour to figure out how to edit, participate. I see it worthwhile as I have a masters in physics, not microwaves but materials. keep it, I hope my vote it counts for readers and wiki team. Wish you the best and good work you guys are doing. Regards, Phillip. Oh, yes I've seen the comment... some rules are too harsh... my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.120.214.56 (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC) — 89.120.214.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. There have been several "keep" contributions from new editors. Please read Single-purpose account - it is more than likely that your contributions will be treated with suspicion. If you have something to say that directly addresses the issues behind this deletion debate, please do so. The argument is that the article fails to meet some very specific wikipedia requirements of notability and verifiability. This is where should should focus your efforts. andy (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2011 (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.