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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contact-electro-catalysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Article which was previously Draft:Contact-electro-catalysis and rejected from AfD as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia by Pygos after being previously declined by Ldm1954, DMacks, CSMention269, Liance and Iwaqarhashmi. Editor created this new version directly to mainspace, circumventing prior history. Current version is a recent proposed catalysis approach from a single group which as yet has no other significant coverage or secondary sources, so WP:TOOSOON. As previously pointed out by Pygos there is probably also a COI. Going to AfD as it apparently does not qualify for a speedy delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as TOOSOON from COI. Not overtly promotional wording, but self-cited to hell and back, with general lack of independent references to demonstrate notability. To emphasize, it was rejected at AFC, and the same editor who now created in mainspace is the same as the one involved at AFC. That editor is possibly a role account and by various evidence undoubtedly involved in the research. This one is nearly the same lede, does not appear to make any new claims with substantially newer independent references to meet WP:GNG, and has even less body content than the rejected one. DMacks (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of notability and lack of comprehensibility, quite apart from the COI issues — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks so much for your advice! Indeed, contact-electro-catalysis has only been proposed for 2 years, which is still an emerging and young field compared to other mature catalytic strategies. Up to now, there are over 50 research groups from 15 countries have particpated in the research of CEC according to the data in Web of Science. A promient example concerns Prof. Richard N. Zare from Stanford Unviersity. His research group has employed CEC to realzie contiuous production of ammonia, and this progress is also highlight by the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences. (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2322425121) 65.75.221.161 (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt - borders on WP:MADEUP. It's only a concept? So, this is essentially one or more persons saying, "I have an idea ..." There has been only 11 page views within the last month. — Maile (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC) — Maile (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you very much for your advice! Some representative applications of contact electro-catalysis include the degradation of organic pollutants (such as methyl orange in aqueous solution), the synthesis of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and the continuous production of ammonia. These three applications have been published in various high-profile scientific journals, with each study conducted by independent research groups. 65.75.221.161 (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As far as I can see this is just an idea, with, at present, no working examples. Athel cb (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you very much for your advice! Some representative applications of contact electro-catalysis include the degradation of organic pollutants (such as methyl orange in aqueous solution), the synthesis of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and the continuous production of ammonia. These three applications have been published in various high-profile scientific journals, with each study conducted by independent research groups. 65.75.221.161 (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: TOOSOON to keep this article. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you very much for your support! 65.75.221.161 (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're getting much support here... ~Liance^talk 17:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least all these suggestions are very valuable for us to improve the quality of the draft. And we really appreciate your time and effort in reviewing this draft, no matter these comments are positive or negatvie. 65.75.221.161 (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your suggestion! The contact-electro-catalysis is indeed an emerging and yound field, as it was proposed in 2022. While Prof. Zhong Lin Wang’s group has been a pioneer in this area and has published a lot on CEC, an increasing number of researchers are now engaging in this research. Notable independent research groups, such as those led by Prof. Feng-Ru Fan at Xiamen University, Prof. Richard N. Zare at Stanford University, and Prof. Qing-Xia Chen at the University of Alberta in Canada, are also making valuable contributions to the field. 65.75.221.161 (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - draft was rejected from AfC for a reason. If it wasn't already apparent from the IP editor's comments here, there's clear COI concerns at the very least, and the sourcing does not at all demonstrate notability as it appears to be non-independent. ~Liance^talk 17:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you so much for your advice! Regarding the potential COI issues, this revised manuscript has described the concept of CEC and the current research progress from a third-party perspective using objective language. For the reference, in addition to some pioneering article by Prof. Zhong Lin Wang's group, this revised manuscript also cites a number of independent research progress from research groups unrelated to Prof. Zhong Lin Wang. We hope this can relive your concerns. Best wishes! 65.75.221.161 (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It was more of a recent research-based text, that has no substantive references to prove it's existence. And the IP seriously not have any idea about COI, i.e. conflict of issues interest policy. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 05:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you very much for your suggestion! I apologize for not checking Wikipedia’s definition of COI, as I am neither the author nor a participant in the editing process. My involvement in CEC research began after attending a presentation by Prof. Zhong Lin Wang, and I am currently writing a review article on the topic. Prof. Wang is a pioneer in this field, and it is inevitable to cite some of his original articles in both academic papers and entries, but such citations are usually seen as a respect for the original literature.

  Although I am now working on this research area, I have no personal interest in the success of creating this entry. I spot this Wikipedia page while searching for literatures about CEC, and I am indeed shocked by the difficulties and controversies encountered when trying to create an entry on Wikipedia about a new field that has received widespread attention in academia (with 223 academic papers published in the past two years, according to Google Scholar).

  I appreciate the discussions over the past few days, which has refreshed my understanding of Wikipedia. I noticed that the author has not responded to comments or updated the text. I will leave it to the author and hope them all the best. 65.75.221.161 (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2024 (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.