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

Revision as of 03:34, 25 September 2016

Revision as of 03:35, 25 September 2016

Line 6:

Single author is principle developer of technique, search of Google scholar doesn't find coverage in secondary sources, otherwise no indication that the individual method is notable. Its a bit out of my understanding of chemuistry, but very skeptical that its more than his lab's project. [[User:Sadads|Sadads]] ([[User talk:Sadads|talk]]) 02:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

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-->