Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravitic density meter

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. ✗plicit 01:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitic density meter

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

PROD nomination was refused due to discussion on the talk page of the article. During my original WP:BEFORE of the article, the only source about this specific type of density meter were primary from the company MPV Tech, the same company that produced the brochure in the wiki article. This article fails to meet WP:NOTABILITY and appears to be WP:PROMOTION for a product that never gained widespread adoption.

Link to the talk page where Ldm1954 and I discussed his concerns about my nomination.

Summary of what I found during my original BEFORE and from my additional checks during the discussion on the article talk page:

253 total hits for "gravitic density meter" on google, of which google only showed 26 due to similarity. Of these, only two seem to be discussing the specific apparatus described in the wiki article: the linkedin page of the manufacturer (2 hits) and a forum post linking to the linkedin page

Remaining sources fall into several categories:

Wikipedia pages (2)
2 pages to a manufacturer/seller of density meters in China (sunp-electric)
those from unreliable sites like chegg or studocu which are also behind registration pages (I count 5 total)
Youtube: 2 videos showing how to make a "gravitic density meter" both of which describe how to measure specific gravity and are not related apparatus described in the article. 2 more hits that mention gravitic density meter.
5 sources that just copy the text of the wikipedia article https://www.definitions.net/definition/gravitic][1][2][3][4]
4 that just seem to have the words "gravitic density meter" on the page somewhere
1 about an exploding cybertruck for some reason

Searching for various combinations of "gravitic" "density" and "meter" bring up numerous results about density meters but I have not found anything that describes the deflected-rubber-hose-for-slurries apparatus described in the article. However, this is a difficult search due to the similarity between the concepts of specific gravity and density which can be confused in translation so there still may be sources that demonstrate notability out there. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This term doesn't appear in Gsholar or Jstor, you get scattered hits in Gbooks [5] or [6] about density measurement. This almost appears to be a hoax. Oaktree b (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I have no skin in the game here. I raised questions on the talk page; if I had objected strongly to the PROD I would have just removed it. Liz decided that the talk page was enough that AfD was more appropriate. I read the page, and I think the device would work. Of course there will be nothing on Gscholar or Jstor, nobody would write a science article on this! Even though I have spent most of my life writing science papers, those are not the only sources for notable devices.Ldm1954 (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's clearly non-notable. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 02:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's really sad about the "I think the device would work." argument is that it is clearly based upon zero expertise or research. Because anyone researching this subject should (as I did) find and crack open a book on chemical engineering. I found several, and the missing type of density meter that we don't have in that article isn't called a "gravitic" one. It's called a "gravimetric" one, or sometimes a "pipe weighing" one. See, for example, section 2 of the "Instrumentation" chapter of ISBN 9780203215913 or the "Measurement of density or specific gravity" chapter of ISBN 9781483144726, which both cover the different types.
So much for no-one writing about density meters. Research would have shown that they do, and shown the right name, too.
Sourcing this to a press release blurb for a single commercial product was not the way to go in 2015. This is in fact an advertisement masquerading as an article. The press release for the product came out on NewsWire on 2015-08-05. This article was written by a single-purpose account later the same month. There's no content worth salvaging here, because of that. A proper discussion of the subject, from a decent engineering reference source, in any case properly belongs alongside the radiometric, ultrasonic, and other types in density meter and not standalone at all.
We should stop hosting this product advertisement that we have hosted for 9 years. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we have never published anything close to original research. There are dozens of journals that will publish this, some of them legitimate, but it's not our charitable mission. Bearian (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2025 (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.