- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
X-ray nanochemistry
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- X-ray nanochemistry ( | 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)
No evidence of notability, only sources from a single author. Also this is a reinvention of established radiation effects of x-rays which have been known for decades going back to at least radiation sickness following the second world war. Ldm1954 ( talk) 22:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 ( talk) 22:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. -- ReyHahn ( talk) 23:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable, made up as part of self-promotion, and the author (of the topic and the article) has had very serious allegations made against him and has now been fired
[1].
SFC9394 (
talk)
23:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see how rape allegations against the researcher are relevant to a discussion about the notability of the research. This is an encyclopedia, not the National Enquirer. Kindly stick to the topic. Owen× ☎ 23:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree, thanks. SFC9394 ( talk) 22:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - I'm already skeptical of the article since it was created by the same person who is cited in the references. As per nom, the topic also doesn't seem to be notable enough to merit an article regardless. Sgubaldo ( talk) 23:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. Self-promotion. -- Srleffler ( talk) 05:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - Reads like an advertisement, and has serious notability concerns. DirtyHarry991 ( talk) 06:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete This is a term made up by one guy, not the distinct field that the text pretends it to be. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: per forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch ( talk) 11:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Non-notable.-- Jasulan.T TT me 15:15, 2 December 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
X-ray nanochemistry
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- X-ray nanochemistry ( | 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)
No evidence of notability, only sources from a single author. Also this is a reinvention of established radiation effects of x-rays which have been known for decades going back to at least radiation sickness following the second world war. Ldm1954 ( talk) 22:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 ( talk) 22:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. -- ReyHahn ( talk) 23:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable, made up as part of self-promotion, and the author (of the topic and the article) has had very serious allegations made against him and has now been fired
[1].
SFC9394 (
talk)
23:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see how rape allegations against the researcher are relevant to a discussion about the notability of the research. This is an encyclopedia, not the National Enquirer. Kindly stick to the topic. Owen× ☎ 23:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree, thanks. SFC9394 ( talk) 22:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - I'm already skeptical of the article since it was created by the same person who is cited in the references. As per nom, the topic also doesn't seem to be notable enough to merit an article regardless. Sgubaldo ( talk) 23:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. Self-promotion. -- Srleffler ( talk) 05:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - Reads like an advertisement, and has serious notability concerns. DirtyHarry991 ( talk) 06:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete This is a term made up by one guy, not the distinct field that the text pretends it to be. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: per forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch ( talk) 11:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Non-notable.-- Jasulan.T TT me 15:15, 2 December 2023 (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.