Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic tongue

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 no consensus. No consensus for a particular outcome has emerged within this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic tongue

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

Information is factually untrue, represents a summary of original research (without accompanying references/publications), and serves to mislabel an entire research field by associating it with a specific commercial product Plantling (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plantling, as this flawlessly executed AfD is your very first edit, can you please inform us who this account is a sock of? --Oakshade (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade - I simply followed the instructions for nominating an article for deletion. I found a checklist after searching for 'how to nominate an article for deletion' - is following the rules somehow a bad thing? For what it's worth, I'm a chemist primarily doing research on Electronic Nose topics. I've heard (many times) about Electronic Tongue technology and research, but I've never heard of the scientist mentioned in this article or his commercial product. That's why I nominated it for deletion. --Plantling 23:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually believe you. I've changed somewhat the wording of the article so it doesn't look that the scientist named in the article "invented" the technology definitively.--Oakshade (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per these sources: [1] [2] [3] KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 13:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. And the references provided by the "keep" !vote above actually prove the point made by the nom that the article mislabels an entire research field by associating it with a specific product. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as the sources are still too trivial and unconvincing, with the closest one being the US government listing, there's simply no substance here. SwisterTwister talk 20:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This does appear to be an actual thing and it has been written up about in detail by notable publications like New Scientist, National Geographic, Northwest Public Radio, Haaretz and wine-based publications. [4][5][6][7][8]--Oakshade (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oakshade's links to those reliable sources make it pretty clear to me that this meets GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2016 (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.