Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plasma Electrochemistry


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure)  Rcsprinter123    (express)  09:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Plasma Electrochemistry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The page creator has the same name as the author of the book used as reference. The Amazing Spiderman (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep for multiple reasons. For one thing, there's nothing wrong with you writing a Wikipedia article that relies primarily or entirely on information that you've written and had published in reliable sources, as long as you're not promoting yourself.  In this case, it's completely acceptable; the author's not promoting himself at all, and it's from an article published in a solid academic journal (not a book), which is essentially always considered a reliable source.  That's a reason to reject the nominator's statement, but not a reason to keep.  The reason for keeping is that this subject is getting significant coverage.  See the book chapter "Plasma Electrochemistry: A Novel Chemical Process for the Synthesis and Assembly of Nanomaterials".  See DOI 10.1039/C2CP43431H and DOI 10.1039/C1CP20501C, both articles published in the journal Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics.  Those are just in the first page of Google results.  This seems to be a new field in chemistry that's getting good coverage in scholarly publications, something that we should definitely cover.  Nyttend (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Google Scholar and other sources assure me this is a notable topic. Since the topic is encyclopedic and can have verifiable and reputable sources, it's not proper to delete it. That said, a one-sentence article about of a topic of this nature isn't reasonable. Others knowledgeable of the field should mark the page for improvement and additional information such that a reader of Wikipedia might get basic understand of what is being described.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2015 (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.