Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CryoJet

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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CryoJet

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

The term Cryojet does NOT appear to be commonly used as defined in the article, and there are no references in the article to help make it verifiable.

This article was created almost entirely by a single individual, and it is also the only article on Wikipedia edited by that individual. The image linked in the article was also created by the same individual, and is described on the Wikimedia Commons page as his "Own Work". There may have been some research done on this process by the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia, but it is not clear to me if this research ever resulted in a useful or notable industrial process.

A quick internet search of CryoJet + cutting or machining did not produce any useful information that I could find to support the article. The closest thing I could find is a technology called "IceJet" which uses CO2 gas to create ice particles for industrial cleaning, decontaminating, or polishing surfaces, but not for cutting.

CryoJet appears to be a registered trade-mark for a company that makes a special-effect machines to produce plumes of "cryo fog" for live entertainment venues such as stage shows and concerts, not an industrial cutting process.

I think this article may be a good candidate for deletion. -- Burnishe (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current article may be terrible, but the technology is notable. If there is a more appropriate name or another article to merge it into, I would support that. 1292simon (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A search of Google Scholar finds numerous references to what seems (superficially at least) to be the same as the subject of this article - but a great rewrite is in order, and perhaps a renaming. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:46, 17 December 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.