Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeocarbon


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Zeocarbon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unclear what this is. No in-line refs. Only external links refer to the same academic paper looking at the performance of a mixture of zeolite and carbon. No evidence that Zeocarbon is anything other than a neologism or somebody's day-dream. Probably just an essay.  Velella  Velella Talk 22:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  20:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Inadequate sourcing. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC).
 * Delete - I found a few references, but they all seem to refer back to already referenced articles. The subject is simply not notable enough, from what I can tell. - MrX 03:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: A GScholar search shows multiple peer-reviewed sources mentioning the topic, so the substance is genuine. I question whether a cohesive article could be assembled from these sources, however.  Probably fails WP:GNG, due to lack of coverage.--E8 (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hardly any cites to those articles though. We would usually expect several thousand references for an article on a subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC).


 * Delete - As far as I can tell, this is a product (see this data sheet with a register trademark symbol confirmed with this USPTO result). It appears to be a mixture of activated carbon and zeolite which Pennington Equipment marketed under the trade name Zeocarbon.  Although mentioned here and there, I was unable to find any significant coverage of this specific product to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are some citations in Google Scholar, but there's absolutely nothing in Google News or elsewhere on the web that's reliable and independent. If this were notable, I'd expect at least a marginal amount of coverage in the mainstream media. The scholarly sources are limited (only one of them uses the term "Zeocarbon" in its title; most are about zeolite) and in my view do not rise to significant coverage as required under WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2012 (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.