Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydrogel micropatch sampling: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:38, 25 September 2016

Revision as of 01:38, 26 September 2016

Line 8:

To some extent, I agree with you. It would be best to ask other chemists to comment on this issue, and ask them to compare this article with other Wikipedia articles on new concepts in analytical chemistry. I believe the key issue is "secondary sources". The other part of your comment "his lab's project" is tricky, as there are several references. So, you need to answer the question is it still "a project", or is it already "a technique". In science, we often match a project with a publication (the final outcome of the project). Here there are four references - the newer ones cite the older ones. Can the newer ones act as "secondary sources"? My answer is - yes. But others may have a different opinion. As long as the same standards are applied to all such Wikipedia articles, then it is fine for me, and I support your request to delete the article "Hydrogel micropatch sampling". <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Natriumchloratum|Natriumchloratum]] ([[User talk:Natriumchloratum#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Natriumchloratum|contribs]]) 03:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science|list of Science-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 03:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)</small>

*'''Delete'''. Multiple independent reliable sources are required to establish [[WP:N|Notability]]. All sources appear to be written by Urban and colleagues. P.S. to [[User:Natriumchloratum|Natriumchloratum]], I almost complimented you as an excellent newbie because your username is redlinked, chuckle. Regarding chemists to comment on the issue, part of the key to Wikipedia is that editors (usually) don't need topic expertise. It's the job of scientists and Reliable Sources to evaluate subject matter and establish notability. Here we just need to evaluate sources and other policy issues. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 01:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)