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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific CMOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is a product placement for a product launched yesterday, which is somewhat disguised as an article. There is nothing different about an sCMOS than a regular CMOS. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sCMOS is not a product, it is a new technology which is based on CMOS, however there are significant differences between the two. It is also likely that this will become an industry standard in the same way that EMCCD supassed CCD in 2001. These two factors mean it warrants its own page. However I agree that some changes are needed in the article to make its importance clearer and I have gone about making these. Akalabeth 10:36, 18 June 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akalabeth (talk • contribs)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : not verifiable as per claims but reconsider if notability can be established. This is an aspirational article,

ad-style, and makes claims about "secret sauce" that would only be helpful if their secrecy, rather than technology, was notable. Independent notice of claims (" wow, this has 100% QE and pixels are responsive right up to their edges" ) would not even seem possible at this point but could establish notability without revealing secrets. Presumably the lens technology would be the interesting component and AFAIK this is secret although they also mention anti-blooming that is a problem with CCD's ( at least it was in mid 1990's as I haven't bothered to look lately ). Authors should try to find something like IEEE or even IEDM conference papers to cite as start on notability. If they have an integrated achromatic SiO2 fresnel lens it may make an intereting paper but not as presented in current form. In the absence of these, I'm not sure how you justify this as a new technology ready for an encyclopedia. If they can cite patents or otherwise make notability fine however. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Obvious advertising is grounds to delete articles even on notable products. This product, released June 16, 2009, has had scarcely enough time to be notable; more important, this article is shot through with obvious advertising, which vitiates it in its entirety even if it were notable: based on on next generation ... design and fabrication techniques ... primary technical advancements that underlie sCMOS technology remain proprietary ... The advanced feature set of sCMOS means that it will contribute to improvements across a wide spectrum of applications and techniques. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject is one of lots of similar products. When this product has existed long enough to be notable, and when it is covered by WP:SECONDARY sources, a new article without marketing fluff can be created. Johnuniq (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2009 (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.