Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Power Impulse Magnetron Sputtering

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High Power Impulse Magnetron Sputtering

High Power Impulse Magnetron Sputtering (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Vanity article describing a technique documented solely by the author and his research assoicates. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, indeed - appears to be the primary editor on the article. (→Netscott) 22:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• In other words, there are several papers (Google Scholar turns up 29) from researchers at Linköping University, Sheffield Hallam University, the University of Iceland, Uppsala University, and the Université de Mons-Hainaut, published in journals such as the Journal of Applied Physics, Surface and Coatings Technology, and Thin Solid Films documenting this subject, and the only actual problem is that Arutiun (talk · contribs) appears to be one of those researchers (the one from Sheffield Hallam University who is due to be giving a conference presentation on the subject in a fortnight), citing xyr own published journal articles as sources. Yes, there is a conflict of interest here. However, conflicts of interest don't exclude content that is verifiable, neutral, and not original research. This content is verifiable, Arutiun having supplied citations in response to the {{unreferenced}} tag; and there are several mentions of the process in other papers from people other than Ehiasarian (such as this) to indicate that the idea has been acknowledged beyond its creators and become a part of the corpus of human knowledge. Keep. Uncle G 02:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There seems to be more than one group involved, and the article seems to be a straightforward description by one of the workers. According to Scopus, there are 16 published papers using the exact phrase in the title, 10 with his name and 6 elsewhere. I wonder if the contents is a little oriented towards his own work, but that can be taken care of by editing. DGG 03:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. JoshuaZ 02:56, 20 April 2007 (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.