Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micro-arrays for mass spectrometry Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Micro-arrays_for_mass_spectrometry

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 to Single-cell analysis#Mass spectroscopy–based methods. Consensus has developed for a merge with which all the commentators are happy. Just Chilling (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Micro-arrays for mass spectrometry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability is provided. The references are all primary research articles coauthored by the technique's inventors Renato Zenobi and Paweł Urban, at least one of whom (or someone close to them) appears to have been involved in coauthoring this article. This article appears to be part of a citation farm or self-promotional circle jerk attempting to establish notability for Paweł Urban. The scientific paper that originally described this technique has been cited only 82 times since it was published in 2010 [1], and Google Scholar is known to be very generous in what it counts as a citation. This is not a highly cited article. There is no evidence (e.g., reliable second-party sources) that this is a notable technique deserving of a Wiki article. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Single-cell_analysis#Mass_spectroscopy–based_methods. There's a paragraph there that does a good job of summarizing a number of related technologies, and a sentence on this technicque would fit right in. I agree that as a separate article it looks more like a circle-cite exercise than anything else. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that a merge with a longer article would be appropriate. Vorbee (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge is a good resolution. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is fine with me. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2019 (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.