612:
and previous. You've answered the "which", but I'm not clear on the "why". At it's core it seems to be a study into the biodegradability of heavy oil, using two microbial consortia and an oleophilic nitrogen-phosphorus fertilizer. I understand that the fertilizer happens to be S-200 but I'm not clear on why that makes it notable. Specifically what is it about those references that make it notable? A plain and simple factual response that assumes good faith would be appreciated, rather than one that remarks on assumptions of bad faith motivations such as frivolity and mean-spiritedness.
445:, a paper published in the proceedings of the Advanced Technology in the Environmental Field: Second IASTED International Conference, which also discusses the use of S-200 to treat the Prestige oil spill. Any one of these would be more than sufficient to establish notability. The existence of 4 such academic references makes this AfD frivolous, at best, and a mean-spirited violation of
397:: There are 4 impeccable references, academic articles in peer-reviewed journals, which clearly establish notability. Paid-editing is not (at least not yet) a valid reason for deletion. If there are unsourced statements in articles, we tag them or remove them, we don;t delete the article because of it.
515:
Notability is not the same as, but has a lot to do with, importance/significance. We're not about to have entries on every chemical ever mentioned in a scientific paper, are we? No, we need some evidence that the thing is "notable", by relying on sources which demonstrate notability (generally, media
611:
Any premise that implies I haven't read the article in enough depth is incorrect. Apart from the creator and his employer, it's unlikely that many people (perhaps even any) have spent as many hours as I have reading the content of the article and it's links (and links from links etc.), both current
295:
I think the motivations of the initial editor are important, especially for a specialized topic like this one. The creator of the article could essentially write anything he/she wants and if you want to verify his claims, you'll have to spend an hour or two to read through the sources (and buy the
552:
Mmm, key words "Significant coverage", which WP:N clarifies as ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail". Are these studies "addressing the subject directly in detail"? I don't know, I think they may just be using it because they've got to test a specific
482:
Then your idea of notability is wrong. Notability is not importance, nor significance. We don't consider things non-notable because they are "just one of many chemicals" (or "just one of many asteroids/railway stations/islands/species of beetle/movies/laws in
Australia/&c.").
463:
I didn't (and don't) consider those academic references evidence of notability. Many chemicals get tested and published on all the time. Those references would justify inclusion in other articles, probably, on the
Prestige spill say or on bioremediation in general. But not
630:. The very first line there reads "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This is exactly what we have here.
200:
Hmm, good point :D I admit I've dismissed the sources too quickly. For some reasons, I thought that the ACS paper was written by the same people who paid for having the article created, but it doesn't seem to be the case.
322:. But the echoed point is that the "COI issue" doesn't, and didn't, exist in the article as it stands. Neither does the "reads like an ad" issue. And both of those are cleanup issues (that we have cleanup tags —
809:
I think the refs show this to be a major product. The low quality article submitted before uncle G started remediation on it shows that COI, paid or unpaid, does not necessarily produce good articles.
267:, so even though the question of who created the article and their motivation is completely irrelevant, it is a moot point even for those who mistakenly believe this has any relevance.
219:
being too quick to dismiss the article as "Reads like an ad, and COI issue." based upon what the nominator says, not what the article actually is. You're judging the article
319:
125:
680:
538:
Notability for
Knowledge (XXG) purposes is demonstrated by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That's what we have here.
520:
is high enough to make it stand out from the crowd of similar chemicals, eg by being the most commonly-used of a significant class of chemicals, say. Merely being
657:
per NoCal100, though the article either needs to be renamed or re-written to make it clear that S-200 and Oil gone Easy refer to the same thing. Perhaps
701:
I agree about the renaming and have made a similar comment on the Talk page of the article. I'd do it myself now, but I don;t want to screw up the AfD.
437:- an article from the academic journal "Journal of Hazardous Materials", which discusses the use of S-200 to treat the Prestige oil spill; to
571:
yes, these sources address the subject (S-200) in detail. Being used, studied and reported on in a scientific study is significant coverage.
495:, in depth in multiple independent published works from people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, by the world at large.
182:
553:
chemical (can't test a generality) and happened to pick that one. I don't think being used in a scientific study necessarily constitutes
427:"The Prestige Oil Spill. 2. Enhanced Biodegradation of a Heavy Fuel Oil under Field Conditions by the Use of an Oleophilic Fertilizer"
17:
92:
87:
96:
435:"Evaluation of biodiesel as bioremediation agent for the treatment of the shore affected by the heavy oil spill of the Prestige"
79:
49:
137:
779:
853:
753:
notable per significant coverage in one reliable source and further references to that coverage in additional sources.
36:
516:
coverage and such). Academic sources may also demonstrate notability, if they can explicitly show the subjects - yes -
441:, from the academic journal 'Desalination', which discusses S-200 in comparison to treatment with uric acid, and to
496:
177:
300:
has done it in this instance, but in most cases I suspect this kind of COI articles stay as they are because of
852:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
411:
Which specific references are you referring to? How do they establish notability (again, please be specific)?
296:
ACS one since it doesn't seem to be publicly available), try to make sense of them, and correct the article.
775:
562:
529:
473:
149:
627:
263:
I think what he's demonstrating is that the article has been thoroughly re-written since it was created by
838:
821:
801:
783:
762:
745:
724:
710:
695:
670:
639:
621:
580:
566:
547:
533:
508:
477:
458:
420:
406:
379:
351:
313:
290:
276:
258:
240:
210:
195:
171:
153:
61:
309:
206:
167:
57:
658:
834:
741:
666:
829:
Notable given the sources cited and it's been sufficiently reformed from its initial COI version. --
797:
706:
635:
576:
558:
543:
525:
469:
454:
402:
326:
272:
145:
83:
446:
176:
You didn't read the citations properly, did you? Hint: I'm pretty sure for starters that the
720:
504:
375:
347:
286:
236:
191:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
301:
305:
202:
163:
53:
830:
737:
662:
336:
140:) and unsurprisingly is a barely-disguised infomercial for a product which does not meet
443:"Effectiveness of bioremediation for the Prestige fuel spill: A summary of case studies"
793:
499:. We're here to write a reference work, for all interests, general and special alike.
465:
141:
817:
758:
702:
691:
631:
617:
572:
539:
450:
416:
398:
268:
254:
75:
67:
716:
500:
371:
343:
297:
282:
232:
187:
113:
524:
in a study as a specific example of a general type of chemical does not do that.
162:: Article has been rewritten by unpaid editor, and sources establish notability.
774:
sources at all, but the primary peer-reviewed publications are probably enough.
264:
133:
626:
If you are not clear on why these references make it notable, please read
245:
Can you be clearer, what are you intending to demonstrate with the link -
812:
754:
687:
613:
449:, at worst. Do have a read of the article before making further comment.
412:
250:
227:
wrote it, based solely upon what a nominator said in an AFD discussion.
439:"Enhanced bioremediation of crude oil utilizing lipophilic fertilizers "
318:
If you want to discuss the importance of motivations, see what I wrote
180:
will object to your characterization of its peer-reviewed journal
846:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
425:
have you read the article and its references? I Am refering to
362:
There's nothing aggressive in the above. It's a hint. And it
788:
The references of the article has been strengthened. This one
228:
120:
109:
105:
101:
433:, which is an in-depth review of the use of S-200; To
370:
not to be rubbing one's nose directly in the error.
223:
on what it actually contains, but merely on who you
736:, notable subject discussed in reliable sources.
497:We don't make subjective judgements of importance
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
856:). No further edits should be made to this page.
491:definition of notability is based upon being not
186:as being an unreliable, self-published, source.
8:
681:list of Science-related deletion discussions
675:
679:: This debate has been included in the
429:- an article from the academic journal
431:Environmental Science & Technology
183:Environmental Science & Technology
468:sufficient for a standalone-article.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
770:. There's no coverage in reliable
24:
215:That is probably because you are
557:in the usual sense of the term.
1:
138:User:Ha!/paid editing adverts
136:as a result of paid editing (
873:
839:08:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
822:04:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
802:03:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
784:22:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
763:19:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
746:17:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
725:05:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
711:05:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
696:04:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
671:03:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
640:13:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
622:12:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
581:14:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
567:14:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
548:13:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
534:12:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
509:12:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
478:09:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
459:05:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
421:04:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
407:23:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
380:05:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
352:12:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
314:09:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
291:05:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
277:05:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
259:04:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
241:23:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
211:22:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
196:22:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
178:American Chemical Society
172:22:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
154:15:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
62:00:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
849:Please do not modify it.
715:See what I wrote there.
485:This is an encyclopaedia
32:Please do not modify it.
342:— for) in any case.
247:"Here is another hint"
231:is another hint. ☺
132:Article created by
776:Fences and windows
44:The result was
698:
684:
50:non-admin closure
864:
851:
685:
659:S-200 (chemical)
341:
335:
331:
325:
123:
117:
99:
34:
872:
871:
867:
866:
865:
863:
862:
861:
860:
854:deletion review
847:
339:
333:
329:
323:
119:
90:
74:
71:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
870:
868:
859:
858:
842:
841:
824:
804:
786:
765:
748:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
673:
661:or something.
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
130:
129:
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
869:
857:
855:
850:
844:
843:
840:
836:
832:
828:
825:
823:
819:
815:
814:
808:
805:
803:
799:
795:
791:
787:
785:
781:
777:
773:
769:
766:
764:
760:
756:
752:
749:
747:
743:
739:
735:
732:
726:
722:
718:
714:
713:
712:
708:
704:
700:
699:
697:
693:
689:
682:
678:
674:
672:
668:
664:
660:
656:
653:
652:
641:
637:
633:
629:
628:WP:Notability
625:
624:
623:
619:
615:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
582:
578:
574:
570:
569:
568:
564:
560:
559:Disembrangler
556:
551:
550:
549:
545:
541:
537:
536:
535:
531:
527:
526:Disembrangler
523:
519:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
481:
480:
479:
475:
471:
470:Disembrangler
467:
462:
461:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
423:
422:
418:
414:
410:
409:
408:
404:
400:
396:
393:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
353:
349:
345:
338:
328:
321:
317:
316:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
294:
293:
292:
288:
284:
280:
279:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
261:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
243:
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
213:
212:
208:
204:
199:
198:
197:
193:
189:
185:
184:
179:
175:
174:
173:
169:
165:
161:
158:
157:
156:
155:
151:
147:
146:Disembrangler
143:
139:
135:
127:
122:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:Oil Gone Easy
73:
72:
69:
68:Oil Gone Easy
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
848:
845:
826:
811:
806:
789:
771:
767:
750:
733:
676:
654:
554:
521:
517:
492:
488:
484:
442:
438:
434:
430:
426:
394:
367:
363:
246:
224:
220:
216:
181:
159:
144:guidelines.
131:
45:
43:
31:
28:
790:can survive
738:Tim Vickers
265:User:Zithan
134:User:Zithan
54:Ron Ritzman
831:Cybercobra
663:Matt Deres
518:importance
466:notability
142:notability
794:Alexius08
772:secondary
768:Weak keep
364:is a hint
327:POV check
703:NoCal100
632:NoCal100
573:NoCal100
555:coverage
540:NoCal100
451:NoCal100
447:WP:POINT
399:NoCal100
368:intended
366:. It's
281:Indeed.
269:NoCal100
126:View log
717:Uncle G
501:Uncle G
372:Uncle G
344:Uncle G
306:Laurent
302:WP:HOLE
298:Uncle G
283:Uncle G
233:Uncle G
203:Laurent
188:Uncle G
164:Laurent
93:protect
88:history
487:, and
337:advert
121:delete
97:delete
751:Keep:
225:think
124:) – (
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
835:talk
827:Keep
818:talk
807:Keep
798:talk
780:talk
759:talk
742:talk
734:Keep
721:talk
707:talk
692:talk
677:Note
667:talk
655:Keep
636:talk
618:talk
577:talk
563:talk
544:talk
530:talk
522:used
505:talk
474:talk
455:talk
417:talk
403:talk
395:Keep
376:talk
348:talk
332:and
320:here
310:talk
287:talk
273:talk
255:talk
237:talk
229:Here
217:also
207:talk
192:talk
168:talk
160:Keep
150:talk
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
46:keep
813:DGG
755:Ha!
688:Ha!
614:Ha!
489:our
413:Ha!
251:Ha!
221:not
48:. (
837:)
820:)
800:)
792:.
782:)
761:)
744:)
723:)
709:)
694:)
683:.
669:)
638:)
620:)
579:)
565:)
546:)
532:)
507:)
493:ed
476:)
457:)
419:)
405:)
378:)
350:)
340:}}
334:{{
330:}}
324:{{
312:)
304:.
289:)
275:)
257:)
249:?
239:)
209:)
194:)
170:)
152:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
52:)
833:(
816:(
796:(
778:(
757:(
740:(
719:(
705:(
690:(
686:—
665:(
634:(
616:(
575:(
561:(
542:(
528:(
503:(
472:(
453:(
415:(
401:(
374:(
346:(
308:(
285:(
271:(
253:(
235:(
205:(
190:(
166:(
148:(
128:)
118:(
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.