Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrated fluorometer

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 and redirect to photosynthesis system. Normally, I would leave the history intact under the redirect, but there seems to be specific consensus here to delete and redirect, so that's what I'm going to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated fluorometer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created as part of a long term campaign by a company to add links and images to Wikipedia. This particular type of product does not appear to be manufactured by anyone else so this is a fairly clear advertisement. It doesn't appear to meet GNG either. SmartSE (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are three manufacturers of these types of device, that I know of, and there are probably more. The article makes no reference to any particular manufacturer. If you want to measure Gamma Star, Rd and Cc then you need to use this technique. If you wish to change the title or rewrite any of any of the content then go ahead. I thought that was the way this worked. You find something that is incorrect, badly written or can be elaborated on and you jump in and re-write. If anyone has more experience of these devices than me, then please correct any inaccuracies. These devices are new to science, they will make major breakthroughs in our understanding of photosynthesis and help to improve crop yield. Globally this could be the most significant device on the planet. I kid you not. This could be the difference in us feeding the planet in the future as resources become more scarce, global temperatures rise and populations increase. Bill and Melinda Gates have just invested in this technology to help feed the planet. "Photosynthesis improvement" is a hot topic and these devices are going to help in that fight. these devices deserve a place on Wiki. Please let me know if it is deleted and I will try to find time to rewrite it under a different title or I will ask some researchers I know to contribute to an article, even though they wouldn't normally touch Wiki with a barge pole.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.202.173 (talk • contribs)

Note that this IP is registered to the company concerned and judging by the speed of their response is presumably the article creator. SmartSE (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one. There has clearly been a very concerted and long term effort by this company, ADC Bioscientific, to promote its products on Wikipedia. I remember this from years ago. There is no intention whatsoever to respect Wikipedia's policies or the decisions of its community. The IP comment above that basically amounts to "If this is deleted, I will just rewrite it under a different title" is indicative of what we're dealing with. There are some comments on the article's talk page from a scientist who identifies as specializing in this field (User:Felim 5). He has recommended deletion or at least merging into photosynthesis system which covers the relevant science. Looking over these articles, I concur and recommend delete and redirect to photosynthesis system. Though there is clearly notability associated with science involved, which is what the article's references are about, there just doesn't seem to be independent notability for this specific technique/product. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- My life experience, as an old man, is that anyone who says "I kid you not" without providing any evidence is trying to kid me. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ed that sounds like a sensible solution to me. SmartSE (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meh GScholar blurts out a few sources that use that term ([1] is the best one), so I do not think it is fair to label the term as promotional (COI issues notwithstanding).

Arguing for notability is hard though. I could be convinced if someone rewrote the article to demonstrate how different this is from other photosynthesis systems, but at the moment I see no real harm in a redirect (or merge if someone finds something to salvage). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:44, 6 October 2017 (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.