- 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 Merge into Artificial gills (human) and redirect. Jreferee T/C 17:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard 11:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Created at 21:52 2 September 2005 User:Daniel11. edited by several people since.
- At 00:57 30 July 2007 User:Mikemill tagged it "{{db-bio|company or corporation|Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)|category= }}"".
- At 03:16 30 July 2007 deleted by User:Carlossuarez46 "Article about a company that doesn't assert significance".
But this device seems to be a notable new technology item, extracting oxygen from seawater for the diver to breathe. Anthony Appleyard 12:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep there's no end of press coverage, its notability is pretty easy to confirm. --Daniel11 01:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Two of the links in the article should actually count as sources and there are more, e.g [1]. But all this refers mostly to the technology prototype and I am not sure whether it justifies an article about the company, so I'd say merge to Artificial gills (human) or another appropriate title addressing underwater breathing in general. --Tikiwont 08:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Artificial gills (human) per Tikiwont. Number 57 12:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleteor Merge as the lack of primary sources (like a patent number) or secondary sources (like an academic paper) is not sufficient evidence of notability. Notability to come? --Gavin Collins 10:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, a quick search revealed the patent numbers (I think I've found the correct ones), and those have been added to the article (in the references). --Craw-daddy | T | 16:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Tikiwont then delete; there's one reliable source the BBC, the patent office showing 2 patents is nice, but given that there are 6,000,000+ patents in the USA, and probably a similar number in Europe, Japan, if having 2 patents makes a company notable or being a co-inventor makes the inventor notable, then the bar for technology companies is virtually non-existant because nearly all of them have patents. Patents means little, we have no 2ndary sources to tell us that these patents are ground-breaking are a huge advance likely to improve humanity's lot or the company's bottom line or whether they are the run-of-the-mill incremental advance represented by 99.9% of all patents. Carlossuarez46 04:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The device is notable, and describing the device needs some mention of the firm that made it. Anthony Appleyard 04:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tikiwont. BBC article establishes notability.--Truest blue 04:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)sockpuppet GRBerry 03:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I have copy-merged from Like-A-Fish into Artificial gills (human), but without altering Like-A-Fish. Redirect to Artificial gills (human). Anthony Appleyard 05:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.