Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanene

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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stanene

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

Article is based on a single theory paper and an accompanying press release from a university (and several "news" blurbs based on the press release only). There's no evidence this material exists or can be made. Hundreds of other materials, some of which are known to exist, have also been predicted to be topological insulators. Too soon. a13ean (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator in case it was not clear from the above. a13ean (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Since this is indeed based on a single paper with a handful of citations (4 in GScholar), it could be treated per WP:EVENT and by that standard it hasn't proven notable since it's just too fresh. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The possibility seems notable (I came here looking for more info on stanene) and it's convenient to gather all info/speculation on stanene in one place rather than bury it in multiple other articles such as tin or topological insulators. The article will grow or wither as more info arrives. - Rod57 (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete "May", "could, "would": these are the words of speculative research. Even if there were several papers I would call for deletion on this one. For a single paper: not a chance. Mangoe (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage. WP:TOOSOON and WP:EVENT do not clearly apply to this sort of topic. ~KvnG

If there's more than the one paper, please list the others. Mangoe (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are several secondary sources listed as refs and external links in the article. Secondary sources are what we prefer to use to establish notability. ~KvnG 22:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a reprint of the press release. So is this. This one is closely based on it, and doesn't add anything new. Same thing for this. The requirements for a secondary source state that "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." and in my reading at least, none of these qualify. a13ean (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three new sources to end of the References section of the article. Please let us know whether these meet your standards for WP:SECONDARY coverage. ~KvnG 16:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The EE times article adds a bit of material, but it's clear that everything is closely based on the press release, as evidenced by the same quotes in every article. At any rate this is a moot point; we have a single theory paper showing calculations that if this material could be made, it might be a 2D TI. Again, too soon. a13ean (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that all of these secondary sources are covering a single primary source. That's not a valid reason to delete the article. To delete, we have to be convinced that the topic is not notable. I agree that it is to soon to start wiring things together with stanene. It may well never happen. But, it is being covered by multiple reliable secondary sources so it definitely deserves to be covered on WP. ~KvnG 20:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NYT just covered it, interviewing the lead researcher. It has a potential to affect electronics. It's growing in visibility. If something comes along to puncture the bubble, I might reverse my vote. Lfstevens (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary ~KvnG 21:36, 10 January 2014 (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.