Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LED-embedded glass Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LED-embedded_glass

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 merge/redirect with LED Film, which at least has a bunch of sources. Shii (tock) 14:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD: [1]

LED-embedded glass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No evidence of any notability at all, no reliable secondary sources discuss it. Significant coverage by reliable sources is required to satisfy WP:GNG. The article creator created the similar articles Dichroic_LEDGlass, LEDFilm and Ledglass. I have no idea how something completely unsourced with no evidence of notability survived the first AfD although it seems there was a lack of responses. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing more than promotional guff by a clearly problematic editor who seems hell-bent on spamming his business and products across Wikipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The same article appears to have been discussed a month and a half ago under a different title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transparent LED-embedded glass. That discussion resulted in 'keep'. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the previous AfD there were only two votes, both for keep. One person voted keep defending it by WP:GOOGLEHITS which is a bad metric to judge notability since no significant coverage in reliable sources was shown. The other person gave a "same as above" type vote with no further reasoning. None of the commenters mentioned the notability issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by previous closing admin: The deletion requests for this article reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corn soup. LED-embedded glass is, like corn soup but obviously to a much lesser extent, something almost inherent to any modern metropolitan resident's daily life, hence there is likely to be lots of Google hits but not many of them useful as encyclopedic citations. That said, Google Books did yield some useful results:
  • Popular science magazine, 1986
  • Structural glass textbook, 2011
  • Building materials textbook, 2010
  • and Gizmodo how-to guide

  As the closing admin of last month's AfD, I don't think it's appropriate for me to !vote here, but as an engineer myself I just want to flag up a few things that may be relevant to this discussion that aren't discussed on the article or the previous AfD. Deryck C. 18:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The book structural glass and facades makes no mention of led embedded glass (or similar) that I can see.

Materials for architects and builders has a single paragraph in a list of other "specialist" glasses (a small mention of 4 lines in the book).

The popular science magazine doesn't appear to be related to led embedded glass; the leds are shown at the bottom and are not contained within the glass material. They appear to emit light which travels up a waveguide and into the material.

For The howto guide there appears to be some holes made in something like Pyrex then some leds added, not the led embedded glass. As an aside, I have never heard of corn soup which definetly isn't a common product in my country :). IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's the same article as the discussed previous AFD, renamed. It probably should get deleted. Looks like one company's version of a common combination of words that is not a real topic. (like "painted cars" or "computers with buttons") But I wasn't sure enough then or now to say "Delete" A North8000 (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have been unable to find any evidence that this is a single manufacturer's product - see this list of producers, and there are others scattered around the web including some large companies^[1], and in any case, as I argued in the previous afd, that is not in itself a ground for deletion since patented products, for example, would often have a single producer. Nor is it a non-notable variant of a product covered in another article and there is an advanced technology behind it. As Deryck Chan points out, it is a common product. Previous disputes as to content have reduced this article to a stub, including removal of references, but it is a proper subject for an article. --AJHingston (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please demonstrate show how the article meets significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as required per WP:GNG. This article appears to utterly fail that test. I don't think Deryck showed it is a common product, Wikipedia isn't about truth, it's about what can be verified and so far no decent sources appear to exist which is odd for any common product. The only firm mention of it appears to be a four line mention in a specialist textbook, which does not meet the requires of WP:GNG (i.e significant coverage). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am at a complete loss to know where you are searching. I am getting plenty of evidence from Google searches that glass with embedded leds is widely manufactured, sold and used. That suggests notability to me. With so many companies such as Samsung developing and promoting their own versions it is inevitable that most detailed discussion is from compnies with a commercial interest or people employed by them, but it this were an obscure and little used product that market could not be sustained. There are examples of use here and here, amongst others. They may not be ideal sources for an article about the technology but they are ample evidence of application in different fields. --AJHingston (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This link [2] has only a one line mention Wireless LED lights embedded in the glass. This [3] doesn't talk about led embedded glass from what I see (I'm not positive which section you refer to) but led embedded in perforated panels. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The test is not for just the combination of those two items, but for the notability of it as a topic. For example, if there are articles on "cars", and "trailers" that doesn't necessarily mean that there should be an article on "cars with trailers" even if that combination of words is common in a google search. That's the question here. I don't know the answer. North8000 (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need to stand back from this and look at the history of these discussions. There is no doubt that the integration of LEDs with glass (as opposed to glass illuminated by LEDs as a separate component) is something with widespread application, multiple manufacturers and into which a great deal of development money is being poured by firms like Samsung. The actual techniques for doing this vary, and naturally every manufacturer will tend to present theirs as distinctive. There is problem in giving a name to a suitable article, and if we look at the history it is not surprising because articles on specific techniques have been deleted or in this case edited down to a stub, but we are in danger of saying that WP should not cover it at all. It may be that 'embedding' is not the best generic descriptor (I would understand why people might not like it for a lamination process, for example, though I am not sure it is inappropriate). For this reason, to search only on the term 'embedded' or reject references that do not contain it may mislead us. But the title has already changed (again for reasons of the history of the article) and it can change again. As Deryck Chan has pointed out, we should not blind ourselves to the significance of the topic. --AJHingston (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is why I have commented rather that recommend "delete" or "keep". I had one other concern which was that 3/4 of the article consisted of details specific-to-one-manufacturer stated as if they were about the topic overall. Somebody just fixed that, taking all of that out which left the article as a stub. North8000 (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say it is a significant topic but we have a complete lack of reliable sources to say much of anything. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Merge I finally weighed in. I found yet another pseudo-clone of this article, this one with more references. [[4]].

Also the German version of this article except with lots of references. [[5]]

This stuff is out there, here's some different people making/selling it:

• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]

The naming is inconsistent, but I guess that the current name is as good as any. North8000 (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are all third rate sources and primary as well. Significant coverage by reliable sources is required to satisfy WP:GNG. That you must resort to bad primary sources shows that reliable sources just don't exist. Some of your primary sources don't even appear to be about embedded LEDs: [10]. Do you consider these reliable sources of anything? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We know that there is a problem about sourcing. Sources are being rejected because they are written by people who are employed in the industry, (even if they are describing theory and manufacturing techniques without mentioning a manufacturer), or the information comes from commercial sources making or marketing the product. That will often be the case for manufactured products. To go from there to say that something is therefore not notable for WP however widely it is used seems irrational.--AJHingston (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should note as well that the german wikipedia sources are the references which DShavit added citing himself. (He also cites the english wikipedia). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me, though, that the references that DShavit uses makes to articles written by him are bad in themselves, if one cares to read them. They are about the technology behind the production and quite explicitly say that different manufacturers vary in the process they use. There is no reason to accuse them of being ill-informed since they are prepared for those within the industry; they will presumably not reveal trade secrets in common with most other articles about recent technologies. It brings us back to my point, it is not that there is no evidence as to the use of the product and what it is. The problem is that the people who know about it are the people engaged in the industry. We are not consistent here - we do not say that a new scientific discovery is excluded from WP because the only people who write about it are people in that research field, and the only publishers those selling to that community, and therefore everyone has a conflict of interest, is a primary source, and WP should not touch it unless it is covered on the Discovery Channel (which we hope gets its information from just those sources in the first place) or some other such medium. --AJHingston (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if we only have primary sources for a scientific discovery then we do not create an article on it. We look for discoveries which are discussed by independent secondary sources (these can be peer reviewed articles too). Company websites on the other hand are self-published; we should not base the existence of an article on self-published sources. WP:V mentions company websites as an example of an SPS. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly acceptable to reject unreliable sources (of which half the above aren't since they aren't about the topic) as they do not establish notability. The main problem is that we know LEDs are notable, we know Glass is notable, but this doesn't mean the combination is notable, even if such combinations exist as products. We must demonstrate that the combination is notable, and this doesn't mean just linking to websites that sell leds embedded in glass. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IRWolfe, since your "but this doesn't mean the combination is notable," essentially repeats what I wrote above, I obviously agree with that. The notability of the combination IS the question. You apparently misunderstood my reason for listing those links. The header for my list was "This stuff is out there, here's some different people making/selling it" I did NOT list them as being sources suitable for meeting the wp:notability requirement. I did not even list them even as being sources, yet you are evaluating them as if I had. I listed them ONLY as showing that this is a product which is actually manufactured and sold by multiple companies. And that such means that suitable sources almost certainly exist. Something like that can't be manufactured and applied without such sources existing. I am not an editor or advocate of the article, nor am I willing to take on the role of being the one who has to "prove" something. I am just doing my best to evaluate the situation and give my assessment & recommendation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have voted for keep for an article where notability is disputed. It seems to me that you do need to show that the article is notable. You posit that reliable sources must exist, to create the products, but we don't even know if the products are created with similar techniques for example and no reason to believe it is so. For example, we don't know if they were created with the technique mentioned here: [11] IRWolfie- (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could say that my thoughts carry less weight if they don't prove the article is notable, but you can't say that I'm required to do that just because I just did my best and making a recommendation and giving my reasons for doing so. North8000 (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I suggest a merger of LED-embedded glass, LED Film and LED Headliner. Biscuittin (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Ledglass, noting that the latter article says "may also be described as LED Glass or LED embedded Glass", and also that the single reference given for this (LED-embedded glass) article doesn't seem to use that phrase but only "Light-emitting diode (LED) illuminated glass". PamD 19:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the articles are essentially duplicates of each other, but together they all stick lack the necessary sources to establish notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The German version has lots of sources some in English. I might try to bring a few over as "for further reading" North8000 (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest only showing the ones you believe actually help to establish notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with LED Film, since other targets have been deleted or redirected. Target page has the best sourcing and appears to be a term NOT trademarked, thus a fair descriptor of the product type. BusterD (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge what? Also the article you suggested is similarly non-notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that what we'd be looking for be the WP:SMERGE, which is one step removed from a delete and redirect. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If the determination were to merge, I would be happy to do the merge. North8000 (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2012 (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.