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. I see support for a merger, but without consensus against keeping the page, merge is not an alternative to retention. A merge discussion on the article's Talk page may be more productive. Owen× ☎ 23:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nanochannel glass materials (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 about arrays of nanoscale glass holes; not to be confused with Nanopipettes or Anodized Aluminum Oxide. Article is based upon a NRL development or patent, and a single NRL science paper where these were used as a template for deposition.^[1] While that is an interesting paper, it did not get adopted by the community, having 86 total cites as of March 2025, which is not large for a high-profile journal. No indications of general notability, certainly not compared to nanopipettes and other types of nanoscale piping in microfluidics or similar systems which are different. Hence fails notability criteria for retention.

Article was PROD'd by nominator, with a PROD2 by User:Bieran. Prod was opposed by User:Mark viking who added sources on nanoscale glass pipettes, and argued (see Talk) that the article is about nanoscale channels, which it was not. Note that the sources added are for single pipettes, not arrays. Options are:

• Delete
• Keep
• Redirect to nanopipette, i.e. keeping such pipettes as a topic that is notable, but acknowledging that what is currently here is different, i.e. abandoning the array concept. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Would think a merge best here. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect is acceptable to me. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has decent number of sources. However it relies too much on primary sources. I have seen worse. Ramos1990 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge I contested the PROD and added three secondary sources; the first two sources (sources 4 and 5)[1][2] had material on nanochannel arrays in addition to single nanochannels; search for 'array' in the articles and you will find it. The third (source 6) was purely about single nanochannels. The first two sources seem to have enough array content for notability per WP:GNG and so my first recommendation would be to keep the article. Should other editors disagree on the notability threshold, there is certainly plenty of verifiable material within secondary sources to support a merge into Nanopipette. It's WP policy to try to preserve verifiable material per WP:PRESERVE, so I think a merge would be an acceptable second choice. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I did a quick check of Cambridge University Press and found several sources that deal directly with nanochannel glass materials (NCGM). These include: 1) Photonic Band Structure of Nanochannel Glass Materials (MRS Proceedings, 1996); 2) High-Pass Optical Filters Based on Gold-Coated Nanochannel Glass Materials (MRS Proceedings, 1996); 3) Fabrication of InAs Wires in Nanochannel Glass (MRS Proceedings, 1996). Each article focuses on NCGM as its main subject. This seems enough to pass WP:GNG as a standalone article. HerBauhaus (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My apologies, but MRS Proceedings are extended conference papers which are rarely cited, often not reviewed, they are not standard journal articles. MRS is a good society, but such articles do not come close in reputation to ones in journals such as Acta Metallurgica or Phil Mag as a couple of examples. Plus three articles from ~30 years ago is definitely not WP:Sustained. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The MRS Proceedings, published by Cambridge University Press, are WP:RS since both the society and the publisher are well-regarded in the scientific community. These articles undergo editorial and technical peer review ([3], [4]). Each of the 3 cited papers provides independent coverage of nanochannel glass materials as its main subject. That satisfies WP:GNG, which requires only significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Sustained or recent coverage is not required.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HerBauhaus (talk • contribs) 01:06, April 13, 2025 (UTC) HerBauhaus (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To editor HerBauhaus: I am sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with your argument that 3 citations in extended conference proceedings such as those you quote satisfy WP:GNG. (Few senior academics in MSE include MRS proceedings in their CV, those publications would be ignored by their peers/Deans.) Similarly 3 cites in standard journals are not close to enough. This is even more so when the papers being quoted come from the same authors at NRL of the patent and paper upon which an article is based, so are clearly not independent, secondary sources.Ldm1954 (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Approval by senior elitist academics is not required for notability. If there is peer review by a reputable publisher, that is generally enough to consider a publication reliable in terms of the review aspect. Not independent and secondary mean these primary articles by themselves are not enough for notability. Nonetheless, primary publications from 1996, and others in the article, and the two secondary reviews I linked above from 2013 and 2018, show sustained coverage--even the array subtopic was not a one-week flash in the pan. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:40, 16 April 2025 (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.