Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aligner

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. Geschichte (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aligner

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

unexplained revert to it's original spammy and unsourced state. This is all covered in the target article and thus should be reverted there unless someone can provide compelling sources that demonstrate that it is independently notable with adequate sourcing PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The nom claims that "This is all covered in the target article". How one might conclude this remains a mystery to me, as the nom article is about a widely used device in semiconductor manufacturing, while the target article is about orthodontia. I'm also at a loss as to what is remotely "spammy" about it or the "unsourced" claim given the two refs. This topic is covered in every single book on micro fabrication that one finds in a search. The nom has also complained that the RVs is unexplained, yet there is half a page of text about it on the noms talk page. Moreover, a declined BLAR, the "unexplained revert", shouldn't be BLARed again, yet that happened here as well. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Truly adorable that you think those are in depth coverage of this topic. We don't accept self-published medical/scientific papers as evidence of notability much less fact. Cheers though. Also might've been helpful if you cited any actual sources instead of using a single promotional source in your revert. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Self published? Medical/scientific papers? These are all books on micro fabrication, published by companies like Elsevier, McGraw Hill, Wiley and Springer. I have no idea what you are talking about. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a pretty solid article, just poorly-referenced. I believe I've found a couple of independent references that could be added to the article:

What is a mask aligner? | Semiconductor Photo Lithography - Inseto, 1 July 2020

Mask Aligner and Exposure Station - IMC - The University of Memphis - University of Memphis, 7 August 2019

Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a brief but well-written article about an old technology that – judging from Maury Markowitz's sources above – is fairly well known in the semiconductor industry. How the nominator arrived at the conclusion that the article was unsourced or spammy, or why they believed its content should instead be covered within an article about dental braces, is beyond comprehension. – Uanfala (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the strangest nominations I've ever seen, and the nominator should feel embarrassed to be acting smug and passive-aggressive when basically everything they've said has been wrong. Calling a completely NPOV article "spammy," violating policy by reverting a contested BLAR, suggesting that the article be redirected to an article about a completely different topic, and asserting that books written by experts in the field and published by prestigious publishers aren't reliable sources. Saying that the material on the page "is all covered in the target article" when the target article is on a different topic is so utterly baffling and nonsensical that I cannot think of any logical explanation that doesn't involve rank incompetence. I suggest that this nomination be withdrawn. Mlb96 (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mlb96:, going through their recent contributions gives me cause for concern. Lots of rude commentary and unneccesarily adversarial interactions, along with 3 recent redirections seemingly to avoid an AfD discussion makes me think that bringing this user to ANI might be appropriate. 142.157.234.234 (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep, and wp:trout the user. Even a cursory BEFORE search reveals extensive discussion on this piece of semiconductor fabrication history. 142.157.205.205 (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

edit: astonished to see nominator is praxidicae - usually much higher quality work comes from this user! One wonders if they have been compromised somehow! 142.157.205.205 (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article has been moved to Aligner (semiconductor). Geschichte (talk) 08:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Maury Markowitz and Mlb96.Keep clearly notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2021 (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.