Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual fixture

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. RL0919 (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual fixture (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)

This page was likely created as part of a COI campaign by Louis B. Rosenberg. Every source is authored by Rosenberg, pretty much nobody else is talking about it. BrigadierG (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Two references are not by Rosenberg. The analysis follows.-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Justiyaya 19:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Agree with nom's and rsjaffe's analysis of COI and sources. Nevertheless, I found a few citations related to Marayong et al.'s paper; I leave the source analysis to other editors. [1], [2] [3] (available here in pre-print). Pilaz (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for source analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, despite this article's dubious origin, the subject does receive significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the sources found by SailingInABathTub seem to satisfy the GNG and to confirm that the subject of the article is notable. Pilaz (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep The entry has significant coverage of several studies. I also found mentions about the device in works from other countries in portuguese. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2022 (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.