- 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. I'm WP:AGF here and following the assessment of the people who say they're subject matter specialists - not that there's anybody contradicting them or asking to keep the article. Sandstein 19:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Nanotech metallurgy
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Nanotech metallurgy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page is a reinvention under a different name of established metallurgy and materials science by a scientist at UCLA in 2018. Well before nanotechnology became a buzzword, metallurgists and material scientists were using structure at the nano size scale (mainly) deliberately in commercial materials, for instance steels and more recently superalloys. There is nothing in this article which is not already covered better elsewhere, both within Wikipedia and outside. Beyond this the article also has structural problems with much of it a list that is not expanded upon, and many parts are written as WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:OR, although I think much (most?) of what is here is already established science. Neither Wikipedia nor scientists should be reinventing the wheel. (Yup, this page does annoy me!) Ldm1954 ( talk) 06:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 ( talk) 06:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Addendum: after I posted the AfD I realized that the editor who wrote the article is also the one who invented the name, so I have added a WP:COI to the list of issues with this page. For reference, he does not appear to have made any other contributions to Wikipedia. Ldm1954 ( talk) 06:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I have a lot of sympathy with the nominator here. A google search turned up a phenomenal number of hits for the term "Nanotech metallurgy" but they all seem to have very close links to MetaLi, a company owned by Xiaochun Li, whose name also bears an uncanny relationship to that of the creator of the article. I can't help but feel that the vast majority of the many sources available to support this article are actually direct or indirect-but-close products of Li, and the whole thing is extremely promotional, reeking of blowing one's own trumpet. This is not the place for autotrumpetery. We need evidence that a decent body of people other than Li are using exactly this term, or the article should be deleted. It isn't enough to find metallurgical publications that happen to mention nanotechnology. A glazier can use a screwdriver but screwdriver-driven-glazing doesn't automatically become a notable term. Elemimele ( talk) 10:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- comment, looks a bit like SYNTH, but I'm not an expert in either nanotechnology or metallurgy so can't really assess it. Artem.G ( talk) 19:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk) 15:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Well I am a scientist and this is a mashup of nanotech and metallurgy that has no basis in common usage that I know of. This article has been through AFC and was created in good faith, however I'm not interested in a COI editor (a university professor and his company) trying to create a new scientific discipline. I checked refs, the COI editor, and googled - the nom has got this bang on.
Desertarun (
talk)
16:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with your analysis, I am also a scientist and this is part of my area which is why I nominated it. Ldm1954 ( talk) 23:24, 24 April 2024 (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.
- 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. I'm WP:AGF here and following the assessment of the people who say they're subject matter specialists - not that there's anybody contradicting them or asking to keep the article. Sandstein 19:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Nanotech metallurgy
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Nanotech metallurgy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page is a reinvention under a different name of established metallurgy and materials science by a scientist at UCLA in 2018. Well before nanotechnology became a buzzword, metallurgists and material scientists were using structure at the nano size scale (mainly) deliberately in commercial materials, for instance steels and more recently superalloys. There is nothing in this article which is not already covered better elsewhere, both within Wikipedia and outside. Beyond this the article also has structural problems with much of it a list that is not expanded upon, and many parts are written as WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:OR, although I think much (most?) of what is here is already established science. Neither Wikipedia nor scientists should be reinventing the wheel. (Yup, this page does annoy me!) Ldm1954 ( talk) 06:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 ( talk) 06:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Addendum: after I posted the AfD I realized that the editor who wrote the article is also the one who invented the name, so I have added a WP:COI to the list of issues with this page. For reference, he does not appear to have made any other contributions to Wikipedia. Ldm1954 ( talk) 06:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I have a lot of sympathy with the nominator here. A google search turned up a phenomenal number of hits for the term "Nanotech metallurgy" but they all seem to have very close links to MetaLi, a company owned by Xiaochun Li, whose name also bears an uncanny relationship to that of the creator of the article. I can't help but feel that the vast majority of the many sources available to support this article are actually direct or indirect-but-close products of Li, and the whole thing is extremely promotional, reeking of blowing one's own trumpet. This is not the place for autotrumpetery. We need evidence that a decent body of people other than Li are using exactly this term, or the article should be deleted. It isn't enough to find metallurgical publications that happen to mention nanotechnology. A glazier can use a screwdriver but screwdriver-driven-glazing doesn't automatically become a notable term. Elemimele ( talk) 10:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- comment, looks a bit like SYNTH, but I'm not an expert in either nanotechnology or metallurgy so can't really assess it. Artem.G ( talk) 19:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk) 15:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Well I am a scientist and this is a mashup of nanotech and metallurgy that has no basis in common usage that I know of. This article has been through AFC and was created in good faith, however I'm not interested in a COI editor (a university professor and his company) trying to create a new scientific discipline. I checked refs, the COI editor, and googled - the nom has got this bang on.
Desertarun (
talk)
16:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with your analysis, I am also a scientist and this is part of my area which is why I nominated it. Ldm1954 ( talk) 23:24, 24 April 2024 (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.