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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Widefox; talk 09:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KDF-55

[edit]
KDF-55 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • I have no current opinion on notability, but a glance at the Google Scholar results linked above (excluding patents) shows that this is a well-established mainstream product, so there's no need for all that invective in the nomination statement and in the nominator's tagbombing of the article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're here for WP:N - see WP:DISCUSSAFD. A quick look at Scholar has many patents - see WP:PATENTS. Can you provide links to actual WP:RS?, as a quick search didn't give me much. These exceptional claims from a scientific point of view require exceptional sources, currently there's none, but I welcome being proved incorrect the (currently) unsourced claims being verified in RS per policy WP:V. Widefox; talk 12:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above my comments apply to a Google Scholar search excluding patents - there's a check box on the left to do this. And I know perfectly well how to conduct an AfD discussion, which is not by making the unsupported scattergun insults that you made in your nomination statement. You are the one who needs to stick to the notability point. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there's things like [6] which is an advert not an WP:RS. Do you see any discussing the topic, rather than passing mentions? (personal comments ignored thanks). The burden is on those who added these claims per WP:BURDEN. Widefox; talk 13:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no burden on me to do anything, as I haven't added any claims to the article. I was simply pointing out that the passing mentions in most of those sources found by a Google Scholar search amount to a refutation by reliable sources of your outlandish claims such as "not barely discernable from a WP:HOAX". As I said, I am not claiming that this topic is notable, because I haven't yet looked into that issue. You really need to calm down a bit if we are to have a civil discussion here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do concede that it appears to be a widely known about topic, but as the claims fail WP:V, and the topic (currently) GNG, this is a WP:TNT. (where does it say anyone claimed you added them anyhow? Widefox; talk 13:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE was done thanks. Finding an RS amongst the adverts and passing mentions is the issue (as a widely known about product). Thanks for 1 (a passing mention of a product Ovopur which contains KDF-55, and includes the price but no verification of the claims here), but that still fails WP:GNG per nom i.e. "Significant coverage" (per below). It also doesn't address the unsourced claims failing V. TNT seems the answer. There's a difference between WP:V and bad faith. When you say well documented, care to share where (then I can withdraw). Of course, you should strike accusations of bad faith which I may understand if I'd added back hoax which I have not, this article is currently a disgrace including potential copyright violation (as mentioned in TNT) and no AGF distractions change that advert consensus on the talk. Widefox; talk 14:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For example, JSTOR = 0, NYT = 0, HighBeam = 6, but 0 RS (6 non-RS = brochures etc), Google Scholar = 35 (+2 citations), but has things like A Reference Guide for Dealers which is based on two sources from the manufacturer "Product Specification sheet", and [7] - they are not independent. Can you reason your Keep, given not one in-depth RS (so far)? Thanks. Widefox; talk 16:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If BEFORE was done, you did a lousy job. I just added a bunch of sources to the article that you should have easily found. I recommend you withdraw this nomination. Toddst1 (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, well at least the article is improved by my questioning it WP:PROVEIT. Well I didn't find those RS, no! I removed the tags for COI, notability and other issues. I disagree that you demonise someone challenging an unsourced orphan article. Still, [8] is a sales solicitation page - hardly an RS, but yes you've done a better job than me finding RS amongst the sales brocures. Now the sales cruft is removed, it makes sense. Come on, though, you can hardly stand by the complete GNG failure before? It was a disgrace, now fixed. Withdrawn. Widefox; talk 17:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's no longer an orphan and product information can be used in the right context which is how I hoped I used it here. It's not a shop site, rather useful info about a productized version of this material. Toddst1 (talk) 20:50, 14 June 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.
More