Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shrilk

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. ansh 666 02:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shrilk

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

This and the related article Micromasonry, also nominated here, are both promotional hype about inventions by Javier Fernandez, and are about things that happened 6 years ago that never came to be. Both were created by the IP Special:Contributions/161.116.100.92 and then elaborated on by the SPA User:Alt1979, and both are based on the media going gaga over science press releases. I have merged/redirected the useful content in Shrilk to Chitosan#Bioprinting already. An IP from the university where the person who invented this works now reverted the redirect, and reverted the speedy deletion nomination I did after that, and also left me this message. So here we are. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shrilk is referred, for example, to as “one of the materials that will change the future of manufacturing” (Scientific American), a “Supermaterial” (National Geographic), and has been chosen (with graphene) one of the “five material that could change the word” (The Guardian). It caused all that "hype" because was the first artificial demonstration of the reproduction of the natural synergies in structural biomaterials. A key factor for their generalized use in technology. The "promotional hype" is actually a personal and strongly biased opinion unsupported by any data or reference. Actually there is no such "hype" or interest decrease on the topic. In addition to its scientific and technological relevance, it is recommended to keep this page due to the large number of citations on printed and digital media to Shrilk, included most main media outlets (see "Find sources" links at the heading of this page).

This year this "promotional hype about something that happened 6 years ago that never came to be" as the user Jytdog describes it, was chosen by the Launch foundation (NASA, USAID, the U.S. Department of State, NIKE...) as one of the leading technologies for a sustainable world.

The user Jytdog has been informed through the editions as well as in his user page on the importance of this material in the field of bioinspired engineering, but he seems unreasonable and motivated by a personal opinion on the time required for a technology to transcend the laboratory environment. His argumentation is based on who has collaborated on the article, ignoring the discussion on the actual content of the article. He is repeatedly ignoring that the success of a technology or the lack of practical use of a scientific achievement, are not included as reasons for deletion on Wikipedia's policies. Ignoring also that Shrilk has triggered a transformation of plastic industry and packaging (references are deliberatively chosen among those with less than a year), even if the speed of that transformation seems to be unsatisfactory for the user proposing the deletion of this article.

The user has been informed multiple times, and he has repeatedly vandalized the page redirecting it to a different article. Additionally, he seems confused on the nature of the material, which describes as "bioprinted" on the Chitosan article where he wants to merge this. Shrilk is not bioprinted, is produced by sequential layer deposition by film casting as is described in this article. As a result of the lack of understanding of this user on the topic of this article and those on the same area, there is an unintended damage to Wikipedia's content. Due to the obvious lack of expertise and the biased negative opinion of the user, it is suggest a ban for further vandalism of this page and related topics.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.94.70.60 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC) — 202.94.70.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

formatting fixed, sign unsigned Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the bioprinting thing. I moved the content into the Chitosan#Research section and improved it a bit in these diffs. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the IP from where this is written, I suggest the user Jitdog to carefully read and understand this Wikipedia article to enhance the quality of the discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.94.70.60 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page for the IP address you are using, which is here: User talk:202.94.70.60. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the claims from the 2010-2011 press releases fail verifiability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

→All claims from press releases are based on peer-reviewed scientific articles published on top scientific journals and based on scientific data. All references to the scientific articles are included on the press releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.94.70.60 (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability doesn't go away over time.Egaoblai (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sign of notability, then or now. --bonadea contributions talk 14:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How are the articles in Nat Geo, The Guardian and others not a sign of notability? Egaoblai (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be enduring coverage. The refs are clustered in time; the press sometimes picks up on science press releases and runs with them (we talk about this in WP:MEDREV for example) and so some refs were indeed generated. (Content about this stuff is not subject to MEDRS; health claims about uses would be if there were any.) But this should not really have been created per WP:NOTNEWS and indeed this all it has turned out to be so far - there is a WP:TOOSOON aspect here.

These articles appear to me to have been created in an effort at promotion and we are not here to promote anything or anyone, per WP:PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick search of secondary sources playing with the made-up rule of "enduring" coverage (inexistent rule on WP:NOTE). Google search of Shrilk returns more than 72,000 results only in English:

- National Geographic, 2013: (Link)

- The Guardian and CNN. 2014: (Link1) (Link2)

- BBC and Popular Science, 2015: (Link1) (Link2)

- Huffington Post, 2016: (Link)

- The New York Times, 2017: (Link)

All of them across time and on high quality independent secondary sources with specialized editors on the topic of this article. No press releases or picking of press releases included. For more (there are literally thousands of mentions to Shrilk on the media): google.

Additionally those claiming WP:TOOSOON (a rule hardly aplicable for science and technology) seems to be mixing the concepts of notability WP:GNG (which this article pass with flying colors as per WP standards of WP:Secondary) with commercialization. There are many materials which are not commercialized or applied such as graphene or metamaterials, but still are notable because their impact on the field. Also note that age doesn’t change notability, that is why obsolete technologies like the Walkman or LaserDisc have a WP page. Therefore, while this Shrilk has a demonstrated 'endured, coverage, the ad-hoc request of it seems inappropriate for this discussion (Maybe it is for those claiming WP:NOTNEWS) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.24.77.60 (talk) 06:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial discussion is of the essence. Do you see how the mentions get more dwindling with time? the 2014 refs are one paragraph, and ditto the 2015 huff-po blog (ahem). listicles really. The 2017 NYT ref is even more passing. Substantial discussion over time, this is not. says yoda (btw, laserdisk and walkman were actual products, and the walkman was very impactful. Shrilk is still very early stage, un-commercialized technology. we do wish you all the best in translating this science to the marketplace, but WP is not a vehicle to help with that) Jytdog (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's is what you got wrong all the time. Shrilk is NOT a technology and it is not in early stage. As the article mentions, Shrilk is a material, first of its kind, reproducing the synergies on natural materials with its own molecules. That is why it was impactful. Nobody in the field thinks that Shrilk is a technology as nobody thinks graphene is a technology. Also I believe you still are mixing the concepts of notability and commercialization/application, and the "Do you see how the mentions get more dwindling with time?" has already being demonstrated false the first time you mentioned it with a link to the google searches of the material for the last five years (see above). You are just ignoring the data and supporting subjective arguments at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.94.70.60 (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last reply here. Sure it is a material.... that is unfeasible commercially. As the NYT says "it is not yet cost-competitive." So it is a nifty trick so far with lots of potential, but is not actually good for anything. Yet. It may be one day. Hence the WP:TOOSOON. Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You still are mixing the concepts of commercialization with notability. The notability of a material is not limited to its commercial success. A material can be notable (and worth of a Nobel prize) because its unexpected and/or outstanding properties. The obvious example of graphene has been given to you multiple times in this discussion, and you still prefer to ignore it. Graphene has all the characteristics you are describing for WP:TOOSOON: It can't be produced in large amounts, doesn't have application, it is not cost competitive. It still is EXTREMELLY relevant in the field, and worth of a Nobel Prize, because its properties. As in the case of Shrilk, Graphene might never be applied, but its notability doesn't depend on that. And it is not the only one, many materials are relevant because what they represent in the field and their rare/unexpected properties, not because the feasibility of its application. Here you have a list of some of them, all fitting in what you consider a unsuitable material to be in WP, all of them with a well deserved WP page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.94.70.60 (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two (really) last replies. Graphene is important scientifically - it was the basis for a Nobel. And the first graphene products are now on the market, admittedly 13 years after it was isolated and characterized (the work that won the Nobel). So there is no comparison, and especially not on the level of basic science. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting for the same reasons as this was closed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Jytdog is purposely ignoring the information that other users are providing. They have already remarked that notability doesn’t go away with time, that is why there are articles about obsolete technologies/achievements. However Jytdog still remarking that the "long" age (6 years) since the laboratory invention of Shrilk makes it suitable for deletion.

Jytdog refers to "clustering references" while ignoring those links provided by other users to Shrilk-related searches on internet, being those constant for the last 5 years. Other users have also provided recent reports from main governmental agencies and articles in NY times from 5 months ago. All of them ignored by Jytdog in his argumentation.

Jytdog talks about promotion of something, but he doesn't specify of what; there is no company or product mentioned in the article. His sole argument to support "promotion" is that someone from the same institution as the inventor is opposing an arbitrary deletion of an article created in 2013 with contributions from +20 people. It is hard to believe that someone needs to promote with couple of paragraphs on Wikipedia a scientific achievement which is covered by National Geographic, Scientific American, The New York Times... and even have several documentaries about it (nothing less than BBC and ARTE). Also it seems that person interested on promoting Shrilk learnt Portuguese to also promote it in other languages.

It has been highlighted that the inference of Jytdog on topics out of his expertise is resulting in destruction of valuable information. His "collaborations" are not different opinions or views on a topic, something that clearly enrich WP, but blatantly erroneous and flawed technical information in technical/scientific articles. One might wonder why Jytdog is doing this and if he is doing it following WP mission or his own personal agenda (see below).

In conclusion Jytdog is neglecting the facts provided by other users, is not backing his personal opinions by any data, and he is trying to force a discussion on COI issues rather than the topic of the article and its notability. In the light of those facts, one might get the idea that the user having a COI with Shrilk is Jytdog and not the user reverting his changes. Even more, a quick check on the user backgorung retuns that Jytdog is banned to edit "other" WP topics. In particular to agricultural chemicals. Considering that Chitosan, the article where Jytdog is trying to merge Shrilk and vandalized including obviously incorrect technical information, it has as main use "agricultural and horticultural" one might argue that he is actually breaking the ban. I believe this should be further investigated and actions taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.193.226.178 (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. The sources are pretty obviously based on press releases, and we have a lot of history showing that the promise in press releases very often fails to materialise. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet ripe for encyclopedia. Encyclopedic content must be well documented by secondary sources. And this Research is not yet to have that. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not (yet) notable; article is a promo-piece. Alexbrn (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG: the few mentions I find in large papers are from 2014 and earlier and appear to be press releases. Likely WP:TOOSOON (also reminding me that WP:NOTNEWS may also apply). —Paleo Neonate – 05:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above comments on GNG and sourcing. Probably a good topic for a TED Talk, but not here. --Calton | Talk 10:53, 13 December 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.