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. There is agreement that the topic is sufficiently notable. Issues associated with promotion and reliable sourcing can be dealt with through editing. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potassium polyacrylate[edit]

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

Simple cation replacement of existing article Sodium polyacrylate - no support that there is any difference beyond that. Additionally the article is almost a word for word copy of https://www.howtor.com/super-absorbent-polymer-plants-potassium-polyacrylate.html which makes this article more advertisement than informative. PRehse (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment I cannot evaluate the copyvio issues at the moment, but searching discloses that this is a reasonably well-known material with a variety of uses distinct from those of its sodium-based analogue. Mangoe (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - regarding the potential copyvio, the author of the Howtor article is Fenglai Dou, while the editor who created the Wikipedia page is User:Doufenglai. This makes me think the contributing editor is the copyright holder. It does mean that the references to the Howtor page aren't kosher - that page is not the editor's source for the information, it is just a mirror (or the Wikipedia page is). Agricolae (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- With further digging, there is almost certainly an undeclared COI. The user reports on his user page that he is Marketing Manager for Ma's Group Inc. The only other citation on the Potassium polyacrylate page is the corporate site of SOCO Chemical, part of Ma's Group, who specialize in Super Absorbent Polymers. At best this is COI, but may even be paid editing. Agricolae (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the detailed info about my career: I work in a trade company. My job is to operate Alibaba.com (a B2B platform) and get inquiries from this website. I submit products (including superabsorbent polymer, water treatment chemicals, Micro algae products, floodbag, etc. ) there and update them. I told this personal information to clarify that, a well-known material established on Wikipedia would not help me or my company. And I would appreciate you if you can stop digging me from now on.Doufenglai (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi guys! Actually, this is my first article on Wikipedia and I really admire PRehse's rigorous (and I like aikido&Kungfu too). About this article (potassium polyacrylate), I want to point out that, potassium polyacrylate is so different from sodium polyacrylate (character, uses, price, you can imagine the differences between NaOH and KOH). And it's necessary to have an own article for potassium polyacrylate. Another side, howtor.com is under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License(just like Wikipedia) and there are no copyvio & advertisement issues :) --The guy working in a polymer company since 2014. Doufenglai (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A marketing manager for a manufacturer of the product who created the page based only on their own and their company's writings really should declare a Conflict of Interest as per WP:AFDFORMAT and WP:AVOIDCOI, both here and on the Talk page of the page itself. Agricolae (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be keep casue there're differences between them:https://www.packrain.com/potassium-polyacrylate-vs-sodium-polyacrylate.html. Deflie (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be enough references already and I think it's necessary to keep. Revealor (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enough references? How so? It currently has one, an unreference essay written by the page creator on a different on-line platform that it largely copied verbatim. That abysmally fails WP:RS and WP:V. (It used to have a second reference to the company web site of the apparent employer of the Wikipedia creator, who as marketers of the product cannot be viewed as a neutral/independent source.) Agricolae (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Must say this is strange behavior for a chemistry article but all of the keep votes are SPAs - I smell socks which reinforces the promotional vibe.PRehse (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only a chemistry (especially isn't a "Simple cation replacement of sodium polyacrylate" as you said.). Potassium polyacrylate's mainly application is water retaining agent --which is an important Drought-resistant solution in agriculture as same as drip irrigation equipment. And I think this would bring more keep votes. (not promotional vibe or "SPAs" stuff.)Doufenglai (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Important' is in the eye of the beholder, and best demonstrated by citation of substantial independent coverage. The only citations now or previously in the article, the only evidence of importance, is one to your own essay, which only reinforces your own interest, and one from a company trying to sell it, which shows it is important to their bottom line, but little else. If this is so important, where is the significant independent reliable coverage, not written by you. Agricolae (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding. If the only issue is lacking of citations, I will post them on article and discussion is down here.Doufenglai (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor making their only-ever edit to Wikipedia even removed the AfD notice from the page before a bot restored it. As you say, very strange for an article on a chemical. I am really torn over this one, because I suspect the chemical itself is notable, but I lack the time or inclination to do the due diligence. However, the page as written is somewhat promotional in tone, lacks any WP:RS, and has formatting problems (lettered sections, a 'tip' that I just removed - Wikipedia doesn't do tips). I would lean toward recommending 'stubify', but I have serious doubts that such an edit wouldn't be repeatedly subverted given the apparent sock/meat puppetry and COI. Agricolae (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I can't find any of your comments about potassium polyacrylate (the title of this article). I know the author of articles is kind of important and digging someone maybe more interesting than do the due diligence a "chemical". But the judgment would be meaningless when you're unfamiliar it, right? Secondly, an IP editor who even removed the AfD notice is not a reason to delete or keep this article at all. (In my opinion, this guy is just not familiar the wiki rules and not like the red frame)Doufenglai (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship is usually not an issue. However, it is important when the page is directly copied from another page - that is at worst a copyright infringement (illegal), and at best plagiarism (extremely bad form), unless the author is the same, in which case it is neither (though still not best practice). That had to be resolved because a copyright violation merits immediate deletion. Seeing that the author was the same immediately removed the concern. However, it also made any reference to that page a circular citation, like citing a Wikipedia mirror of your own edit (or for that matter, Wikipedia does not host personal essays, and you can't get around it by first posting it somewhere else then copying it over with a citation), which is worth noting since it is the only surviving source given. Authorship can also be an issue when there is a COI, and I didn't have to do any digging - you put the information right on you User page. One does not have to be familiar with a particular subject to determine whether it has received substantial independent coverage, and yes, I could tell. Here is a thought, though - you could remove all question by using your expertise and interest to rewrite the article with a more neutral encyclopedic tone, supported by reliable sources that are independent of both you and Ma's group. That would go a long way toward assuaging concerns. Agricolae (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your opinions patiently. So far I know the issue is lacking of citations, and I will post them on article. Besides, like I said before, a well-known material established on Wikipedia would not help me or my company. Only on alibaba.com, there are more than 700 suppliers sell potassium polyacrylate. (and there're hundreds of B2B platforms in the world) People would buy it everywhere when they need. I mean a fruiterer surely can establish an article about banana on Wikipedia, right? By the way, you use "digging" first then I followed :) Doufenglai (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It indeed would not be surprising were a banana enthusiast to write a Wikipedia page on bananas, but I would expect that banana enthusiast to be aware of sources other than ones they have written themselves, or are on their company's web site. Most enthusiasts cast a wide net for material about things that interest them. What is indeed a challenge for a banana enthusiast is to write an article about bananas that is not enthusiastic, that doesn't for example, call them 'unique', but instead has a neutral encyclopedic tone. Still, that is what a Wikipedia page should be. (As to 'digging', I clicked at the linked reference and read the banner at the top of the page, so not exactly major excavation.) Notability is not established by how many people sell it, but by how many people write substantial independent coverage of it. Google Scholar returns about 1200 hits, and though I haven't opened any of them up, I would have to think some of them would be sufficient to establish notability if only someone would incorporate that material into the article. As an aside a lot of them on the first page have nothing to do with agriculture: I see superconduction, pharmacodynamics, and what looks like electrophoresis, which confirms my suspicion that the current article is giving undue weight to what is just one application of the polymer, like writing an article on sodium chloride and only talking about how much better it makes french fries taste. Agricolae (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for repeat the importance of citations for Wikipedia article. If you have no more objection about my last comments except the "digging thing" and "banana metaphor ", I do suggest to get back to the subject - Are the citations/references of this article available enough to keep. (I just add some citations on the article. )Doufenglai (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noted you revised my typographical errors, thanks for that. And I think it would be much better if give time to develop. Doufenglai (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there are still several problems with the quality of the sourcing. For starters, the current references 2 and 6 are not only incomplete, they are so incomplete that you apparently did not realize they are referring to the exact same publication. And that is not the only problem with them. Secondary sources are preferred to primary sources (research reports), but more important is the quality of the publication. The International Journal of Current Research is what is considered by many to be a 'predatory open access journal', nothing but a money-making scheme in disguise. These journals charge large fees to publish any paper sent to them, and do only superficial editing if any - in one instance a scientist submitted a paper, a significant part of which was nothing but a repeated obscenity. They published it without anyone even looking at the text and noticing what he had done. As such, they do not meet Wikipedia's standard of reliability, being effectively a self-published source. You have also added a thesis, which helps for notability, but represents a primary source as well. And as I hinted before, the page needs to be more about the polymer and less about the one specific application. Agricolae (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noted with thanks. I will keep working on it. Doufenglai (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep An obvious chemical concept apparently of some note, quick search on Google Scholar indicates no less than 1024 articles discussing this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2018 (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.