- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Plant on a chip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an abstract for a single scientific paper. It does not qualify as significantly noteworthy for inclusion. Cubic Hour (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 19. Snotbot t • c » 14:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Interesting, but I have to agree with nominator. Innovations like this usually aren't notable unless they become widely used/applied. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While the name occurs in the literature, it refers to something completely different (either "power plant on a chip" or "chemical plant on a chip"). With just 5 citations for the paper, the topic of this article is not notable. I also note that the author of the article seems to be the "Ali Yetisen" mentioned, and if so, WP:YOURSELF applies. -- 202.124.74.3 (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2012 (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.