Reliist consensus not reached, same admin XfdCloser Sandstein for two Afds from the same editor/creator, biased opinion. At least one more week according to WP policy. 147.95.130.109 (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
endorse The discussion was clearly for delete, maybe redirect (which one could still do). Looking at a Google scholar search I'm only seeing two papers, by the same group, on the topic. And news coverage is very limited at this time. So topic probably doesn't meet WP:N due to the lack of independent sources. That said, I think a redirect would be reasonable at this time (and not in violation of the spirit of the AfD). And once we start seeing independent coverage (ideally both in scholarly work and in the press (probably Science News or something)) then recreation would be reasonable. Hobit (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment Known as ferrolens in academia however in public domain it is known as ferrocell which more than 12,000 instances and more than 5,000 youtube videos and DIY for example here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8zEWJzglN0 and here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHTwS6Cxr50 . Also ferrolens or else ferrocell closely related and variation to a Hele-Shaw cell WP article entry which has many entries in google scholar. References [2] and [3] are using it without mentioning its name directly in the title. Reference [3] has 36 instances of the name ferrocell in the body-text and reference [2] is using the Hele-Shaw cell name instead. Notable enough in academia and very much so in public domain whereas other related existing WP articles have no academic references like this, magnetic viewer film. That is injustice and not fair play. Ferrolens or else Ferrocell device is already 10 years around first patented at 2008, https://patents.google.com/patent/US8246356B2/en and has a strong community around from public domain and as well know from academia. Also present in science conferences, lately won best poster awards in magneto optics topic at the San Francisco International Conference for Magnetism (http://www5.each.usp.br/premios/professores-da-each-se-destacam-em-conferencia-sobre-magnetismo-nos-estados-unidos/). Since Afds are not votes. I don't see with less than 10 participants and so many opposite opinions present this to be consensus?... Please Relist at least. 147.95.130.109 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I count 11 participants, other than the sockpuppet. That's plenty, AfDs can be closed with three if they all agree. Most participants favoured deletion and the ones who wanted it merged didn't seem that enthusiastic. The close doesn't prevent you from redirecting the title somewhere else or writing about the topic in another article if appropriate. We don't care how long it's been around or how many times it's mentioned on YouTube. Hut 8.5 17:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn New evidence. A search in google scholar of the second name the ferrolens is known as "Ferrocell" mentioned inside the article gives 31 instances. Therefore, primary reason in the Afd fro deletion thus "no independent sources referenced" can not be anymore sustained. Undelete and propably re edit and more independent sources. https://scholar.google.gr/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=ferrocell&btnG=194.177.198.8 (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
