Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanogem

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. → Call me Hahc21 03:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nanogem[edit]

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

I've read the standard for notability and I question this article. 400 Lux (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no third-party coverage, nothing found via Google. Huon (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the only independent coverage I could find is a thread at a gemology forum, which does not count as a reliable source. (A journal article about these "nano-gems" is mentioned there, but it does not seem to be in-depth coverage.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This (PDF) seems to be the original document mentioned there (p. 156). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 18:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per הסרפד. No reliable sources, and no indication that this particular sort of artificial gem is more notable than any other. BethNaught (talk) 19:46, 17 March 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.