Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydrogel micropatch sampling

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. Sam Walton (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogel micropatch sampling

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

Single author is principle developer of technique, search of Google scholar doesn't find coverage in secondary sources, otherwise no indication that the individual method is notable. Its a bit out of my understanding of chemuistry, but very skeptical that its more than his lab's project. Sadads (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To some extent, I agree with you. It would be best to ask other chemists to comment on this issue, and ask them to compare this article with other Wikipedia articles on new concepts in analytical chemistry. I believe the key issue is "secondary sources". The other part of your comment "his lab's project" is tricky, as there are several references. So, you need to answer the question is it still "a project", or is it already "a technique". In science, we often match a project with a publication (the final outcome of the project). Here there are four references - the newer ones cite the older ones. Can the newer ones act as "secondary sources"? My answer is - yes. But others may have a different opinion. As long as the same standards are applied to all such Wikipedia articles, then it is fine for me, and I support your request to delete the article "Hydrogel micropatch sampling". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natriumchloratum (talk • contribs) 03:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Multiple independent reliable sources are required to establish Notability. All sources appear to be written by Urban and colleagues. P.S. to Natriumchloratum, I almost complimented you as an excellent newbie because your username is redlinked, chuckle. Regarding chemists to comment on the issue, part of the key to Wikipedia is that editors (usually) don't need topic expertise. It's the job of scientists and Reliable Sources to evaluate subject matter and establish notability. Here we just need to evaluate sources and other policy issues. Alsee (talk) 01:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC) (Clarification: I meant I almost missed that you've been around a few years and that you have significant experience.) Alsee (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the four references in the article, all are journal articles published by the team that developed the technique. The fourth is just a link to a list of upcoming publications, but searching for the article title "Quantitative mass spectrometry of unconventional human biological matrices" (abstract) shows that it appears to be mainly about testing the specimens once you have them. Hydrogel micropatch sampling is not mentioned in the abstract so the use of this technique may be just a passing mention; I'm not prepared to pay for the full article to prove that though. I can't find any secondary sources mentioning it and would agree with Sadads that it is the non-notable project of one lab. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:09, 29 September 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.