Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiber modification

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. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fiber modification

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

This appears to have major problems. It looks like a copyright text dump (random section number and Hill 2006 ref) but I can't find the source. The "refs" are either meaningless or primary sources undoubtedly associated with the obviously COI creator.

Seems to fail notability and WP:OR Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does appear to be copied from elsewhere and contains a lot of WP:OR JMHamo (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, a COI is very possible. However the refs are not just random noise; ref (4) is valid, as is ref (5) (included on Adamopoulos's About page), which also shows that Adamopoulos is an academic (at Linnaeus University). The SPA who created the article does not share the name of any of the cited authors, by the way. A quick search shows that Krzysik 1993 is a real paper also, and retrieves books on the subject. The same goes for Takatani 2000 and Laine 2002. The topic is therefore apparently notable, and while the article needs cleanup, AfD is probably not the right forum for that purpose. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2015 (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.