Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tunable White-Light-Emitting Nanocrystals


 * 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   redirect to Light-emitting diode. The impression I get from this discussion is that this is a potentially notable technology, but that the particular discovery that is now the subject of the article is not notable. The title is therefore redirected to where the technology is already covered, without prejudice to a later recreation in a form that is about the technology as a whole.  Sandstein  10:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Tunable White-Light-Emitting Nanocrystals

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence that this is a notable discovery - searches turn up this article and a couple of user pages Dougweller (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I disagree, this can be found with a bit differing search terms on several scientific sources. "Notable" is a very relative adjective. Must it be that "notable" to have an article?Akocsg (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Can you find sources that show it meets WP:GNG? Because it does have to be notable by our criteria to have an article.Dougweller (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Here are some: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6 I'm sure there are more, but these should be enough I think.Akocsg (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment' As you say, different search terms find sources which if they had been in the article would have made it look clearly notable. 2 didn't work (we wouldn't use Softpedia anyway) abut the New Scientist source and the Cambridge link I think make this AfD no longer necessary. Too tired to close this properly now though, in the morning if no one beats me to it. Dougweller (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Few secondary sources are old or dead. No evidence that the "discovery" has had any impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC).
 * Comment Ok, won't shut the AfD. Let's see how it plays out. Dougweller (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and possibly redirect to light-emitting diode. No content worth merging - the only content in it is one sentence about a single paper. The article seems to exist just to push the "Turkish invention" angle, and a quick Google Scholar search suggests that people have been at this before Demir et al. Kolbasz (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a ridiculously notable technology for which hundreds of scholarly citations could be listed. However, it's a very deficient article, and the subject is already better covered in Light-emitting diode. While WP:BEFORE says atrociousness isn't a valid basis for deletion, in this case I think common sense trumps the guidelines. Keeping a bad article, when it's likely to remain this bad for a while, when there's already good coverage elsewhere, doesn't make sense. Merging doesn't make sense because there's nothing to salvage. Redirecting doesn't make sense because the title is an arbitrary description of the technology (there is no succinct name for it), and google shows no external links to the page.


 * Demir's 2008 paper, the basis of some of the pop media coverage (e.g., New Scientist) cited above, shows 122 other papers cited it in Google Scholar, and a similar 2006 paper from other researchers on the same idea but with CdSe/CdS (rather than CdSe/Zn S) wavelength-upconverting nanocrystalline LED coatings shows 300 cites in Google Scholar, and that in turn was based on a breakthrough 2002 paper in Nature on narrow-band (presumably non-tunable) nanocrystal wide-spectrum QD-LEDs, which is cited by 1,837 other papers in Google Scholar. Demir's 2008 innovation was achieving higher efficiency, but built on past tunable quantum dot LED (QD-LED) research, and naturally influenced subsequent research.


 * Some significant references, if someone thinks the article should be kept:
 * --Agyle (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * --Agyle (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * --Agyle (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * --Agyle (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * --Agyle (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * --Agyle (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * --Agyle (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * --Agyle (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable as reliable sources were found. Passes WP:GNG and WP:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Mr. Guye (talk • contribs) 20:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment User:Mr. Guye and others, this is about something recently discovered (Publication Date (Web): February 6, 2014) by a Professor Demir. All the sources above are surely about something else, right? Are you saying you read them and they are about "a type of nanocrystals that were first developed by a group of Turkish scientists led by Hilmi Volkan Demir at Bilkent University,"So maybe there should be an article, but not this one. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're right; I made the mistake of assessing whether Tunable White-Light-Emitting Nanocrystals (the article title) was a notable topic, which it certainly is; it includes many variations published in studies by Demir and hundreds of other researchers over the past decade. However, the Wikipedia author clarifies in the opening sentence that the term is used here to refer only to a single variant, manufactured in a precise way, written about in February 2014, not tunable white-light-emitting nanocrystals in general. This article would be better titled Tunable white-light-emitting Mn-doped ZnSe nanocrystals created with Sharma, Guzelturk, Erdem, Kelestemur, and Demir's 2014-published modified nucleation doping strategy. Demir's paper was titled "Tunable White-Light-Emitting Mn-Doped ZnSe Nanocrystals", but Mn-doped ZnSe crystals have been around since at least 1990, they've been used in tunable white LEDs since at least 2007, and other nucleation doping strategies have been devised in the past; the distinction here is simply Demir's precise fabrication technique. My "delete" vote remains unchanged, but for a different reason: there is no evidence that Demir's technique is notable; no other research papers in Google Scholar cite the paper, nor does it seem to have attracted mainstream press coverage. The subject is too narrowly focused to warrant an article, and probably too obscure and unnotable to warrant even a mention in a related article. Agyle (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 02:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as being too new, subject t later re-creation. Turkish science and medicine is advanced; for example, their surgeons have been on the cutting edge (pardon the pun) of work on watermelon stomach.  However, in this case, we need to let the scientific method do its job. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge for now. The New Scientist source is a good start, but it's yet to be seen if this particular technology will find wide commercial application.  If these devices become important and continue to garner coverage, the article can be restored at a later date.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC).
 * I am not as convinced as some about the reliability of New Scientist as a source for scientific matters. They often hype articles to make them more sensational. In the article referred to the claims of the paper seem to have been swallowed whole with little critical investigation. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2014 (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.