Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holographic direct sound printing

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. ✗plicit 13:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Holographic direct sound printing

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Holographic direct sound printing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Article based upon a 1 month old paper. While it has minor attention in pop science press, its Altmetric of 76 is not particularly high (it would need 200-300). Page is almost completely promo of research from a single group at Concardia University. Considering how active additive manufacturing currently is, much much more is required. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your science. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, and Canada. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not my science. I found about this method of 3D printing in the newspapers and I thought it probably deserves to be mentioned at Wikipedia. Arwenz (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Primary sources and churned press releases are not a suitable basis for an encyclopedia article. XOR'easter (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Unsure - for me the difficulty is that this is WP:TOOSOON (yes I know that's an essay that's not about scientific research, it just seems appropriate) so we don't know how much lasting importance there is about this discovery. I think an argument can be made for !keep given it has been peer reviewed, !delete because it is really just a small number of scientists saying it is important or !draft on the basis it might soon be shown to be important. I'm not sure how to parse it. JMWt (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: it is very, very rare to have articles just because they are reviewed, we require extensive secondary sources. TOOSOON is very commonly applied to scientific research. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, whether or not one links to the WP:TOOSOON essay, it is too soon. Merely getting through peer review is not enough. (If it were, I could have half a dozen articles about my own work...) XOR'easter (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

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.