Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dual Phase Steels Magnetism Modeling

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 delete. Sandstein 07:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dual Phase Steels Magnetism Modeling

[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)

It exists and has some coverage, but not enough to meet notability. Boleyn (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as short paragraph to Dual-phase steel. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Chiswick Chap. Mccapra (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What you gonna merge? This was supposed to be a four year project starting in 2009, so it should have had some results to show by 2013. Nothing has been reported since the article was created. If they had actually achieved something, there would be something to say in the dual-phase steel article, but at the moment it looks like they got zilch, or at least, nothing they cared to publish. Also, a big chunk of the article is an unattributed copy-paste of the project's submission statement so it potentially has copyvio problems as well. SpinningSpark 00:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further commentary on SpinningSpark's argument?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I have to agree: it's a project that would only be notable if there were a lot of ongoing coverage, or if it produced notable results. I'm seeing neither. Mangoe (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Not notable enough for its own article --James Richards (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd say merge, but there is nothing to merge.North8000 (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2020 (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.