Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiln Phosphoric Acid (KPA)


 * 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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Kiln Phosphoric Acid (KPA)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Queried speedy delete. How much is this spam, and how much a valid industrial product? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The following article are also being nominated in this AfD because they are redirects or just WP:Coatracks to advance the same marketing points, and have turned into substantially the same articles recreated with similar names before:

--Closeapple (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   —Closeapple (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. (Oops! Appleyard beat me to the AFD discussion!)  These are attempts to recreate the JDC Phosphate spam article.  Patents are not inherently notable; being named on a patent is not inherently notable.  The terms "Improved Hard Process" and "Kiln Phosphoric Acid" are WP:Neologisms with no use outside of this company.  No proof this this process is implemented outside of lab experiments &mdash; indeed, the tone of the articles strongly implies that this industry process hasn't existed long enough to even be implemented in real industry.  Only reference appears to be Fertilizer International, an trade magazine whose editorial guidelines are not clear and so is not known to be a WP:reliable source for notability.  These pages are all back-door attempts to gain "Wikipedia legitimacy" for a company named JDC Phosphate, which is a company apparently formed by this Joseph Megy guy, who is trying to gain traction for this chemical trick he just got a patent on this year.  JDC Phosphate has been speedy deleted twice, despite the author's repeated attempts to delete the speedy tags in violation of Wikipedia policy.  Same author has recreated the same basic information under multiple titles.  Since the user has also cleared his user talk page and the diffs on the other articles are reset, you'll probably want to check Geoseh User Talk as of 222422115 for the warnings. Tired of playing Whack-a-Mole with this guy. --Closeapple (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Notability cannot be established as I cannot find coverage of either Mr Megy or the terminology in multiple, independent reliable sources. Also WP:NEOLOGISM concerns per Closeapple.  nancy  (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all, non-notable, self-promotion. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, sources do not establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all. If and when this process becomes notable, we can have an article on it. Similar arguments as in Articles_for_deletion/7-Acetoxymitragynine. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: I have a PhD in Physics and have been aware of Dr. Megy's work for the last 25 years. There is no self-promotion here.  The facts presented on Dr. Megy's bio are real and are in no way intended to be self-interest promotions on his part.  He is not involved.  I happen to be aware of him and looked him up and noticed this mean spirited discussion.  One of the comments indicated that "patents aren't inherently notable." Since when?  Dr. Megy has 17 patents and that is significant.  It is a very thorough review process in Chemical Engineering.  Furthermore, the current process was funded by an SBIR grant and reviewed at all levels for thoroughness.  The KPA process has been in existence for over 25 years and was patented by Drs. Hard and Megy as noted in patent list.  The reason for putting Dr. Megy's name in play is that he has been a contributor to the advancement of both the science of production of chemicals (mass production as measured in hundreds of thousands of tons per year) and the engineering detail required to make large processing plants work. Amen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drelbie (talk • contribs)  — Drelbie (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * OK. Specifically addressing these claims by Drelbie:
 * "There is no self-promotion here" part 1: The author's creation of multiple articles saying practically the same thing, and always making Joseph Megy and/or JDC Phosphate's involvement the main thrust of the article, indicates that it is quite definitely (self-)promotion. The original draft of the JDC Phosphate article made it quite clear what was intended: indeed, the JDC Phosphate article got speedy-deleted as WP:CSD &mdash; the fastest level of removal on Wikipedia, reserved for only the most obvious cases &mdash; then speedied again (as WP:CSD) 3 hours later when it was recreated by the same author.
 * "There is no self-promotion here" part 2: If this isn't for self-interest promotion, why have you (Drelbie) cut-and-pasted the clearly copyright-labeled corporate promotional bio from JDC Phosphates as his biography? (This is a violation of Copyvio.)
 * "There is no self-promotion here" part 3: I noticed that the copyright violation from the promotional bio says "Dr. Megy was SBA 'Small Businessman of the Year'". (This was the only statement in the whole article that even caught my attention as maybe defending notability, so I went looking for it.)  Just out of curiosity, I searched for "Small Businessman of the Year" and Megy on Google and it doesn't come up.  Granted, the US Small Business Administration website doesn't seem to find that title at all.  It may exist somewhere, but apparently the SBA doesn't talk about it much.  So apparently it's not important enough that the SBA issues news releases about it.  So much for that avenue.
 * "Patents aren't inherently notable." Since when?: According to USPTO publication EIP-3131P-OL: "Patent Counts By Class By Year - Independent Inventors Patents Granted: 1977 - 2006", there have been 597,842 patents by individual or unnamed (not corporate) owners between 1977 and 2006. According to EIP-3130P-OL: "Independent Inventors By State By Year", 2,880 patents were issued to individuals just in California (Megy's home state) in just 2007 alone.  Again, I stress that these numbers don't even include corporate patents: these numbers are just ones originally issued first to individuals.  Having some (or "17", or "over 20") original ideas in ones life does not inherently make one notable.  I highly doubt that having an SBIR grant is notable in itself either.  It may lead to kudos for insiders in a specific industry or specific sector of the scientific community, but it's not especially notable in a general-interest encyclopedia.
 * These AfD topics can be re-added later when the IHP/KPA process meets its manifest destiny of worldwide fame without a boost from Wikipedia based on listing people who have patents: "Wikipedia is not a directory ... directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business." --Closeapple (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2008 (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.