Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superwood

: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 merge‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to InventWood. Given the reasonable merge suggestion and no explicit opposition to that as an outcome (ie, no "keep" votes that explicitly say we need to keep both), I'm counting the "keep"s as "merge" here. asilvering (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

=[[:Superwood]]=

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Superwood}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Superwood}})

Promo page about a product being developed by a startup that is not yet on the market. The only sources are low-level news reports, no general coverage. If the product was in extensive use then perhaps it could have a page; currently this is advertising and fails WP:!. (Adding: I just nominated the company InventWood as well for similar reasons.) Ldm1954 (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Engineering, and Maryland. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: Some coverage in Gscholar ... This is a dissertation [https://www.proquest.com/openview/62dd1dee01d945ea64f3b1fbe181bf3a/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y], here: [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00170-024-13155-0] and here [https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/71007616/THE_WORLDs_FIRST_COMMERCIAL_SUPERCRITICA20211002-24820-h3kxj0.pdf?1738430986=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DTHE_WORLD_s_FIRST_COMMERCIAL_SUPERCRITIC.pdf&Expires=1748620738&Signature=QQ6dg8todsvauTIULiKOsfGni58x2LkONaf5-ip1Fo3H0l1elXheNkp70Z4JALtr4iio2q9cvbVWDhp2xv-0-iiRtJXbcvJ62H1uwn0V8zIeuvBGaWFiXCjrvA9nN3Om957VZoiZTLsWM39qEiLS1dud5ci1UIiGcRKTYpGzFIP8u0NkQUf693zFsdXGS8GYHuE-QtWFGor-xNwJxqLw5yVR0tn8~7bUW04PrGOEZXW46ZK02OiKbubVO2V-6J-3J4Z3nOFpoUsU~IGvbLgb7p74HIt11dsr2DcIAvy1qVSwdP8bM9v2HnuthVgG5nrL6Csya4o2Bw6GE8j~I3GvHg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA] talk about different versions of the product. Vice article [https://www.vice.com/en/article/a-startup-invented-a-superwood-thats-10-times-stronger-than-steel/], Tech Crunch [https://techcrunch.com/2025/05/12/inventwood-is-about-to-mass-produce-wood-thats-stronger-than-steel/]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  • :... Papers authored by the creators of a product certainly couldn't be called independent by any stretch of the term. The third paper isn't even about the same thing, I suppose you can call that a "different version". Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. There is enough coverage to pass notability guidelines. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Before mark any article for deletion, Please perform a WP:BEFORE. This topic demonstrate the notability and references are bylined, passes WP:GNG. Moreover, Nominator tagging article without conduct any prior WP:BEFORE. He/She only enjoying of deleting articles on Wikipedia. His/Her contribution is not constructive. CresiaBilli (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment there appears to be some inappropriate comments being made here, which is surprising. For instance advocating that a few mentions on Google Scholar proves notability is inappropriate. Of course the original paper and thesis are mentioned. However, a paper with 2 citations is not close to passing any WP:SIGCOV criteria -- 300 would. Churnalism for a product which fails WP:NOTPROMO and WP:FUTURE. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Engineered wood#Densified wood. The above sources are not enough to make the product notable per Wikipedia:NPRODUCT (a few articles are hardly "sustained coverage"). On the other hand, densified wood as a general concept is probably notable, even if it is currently discussed as a subsection of another article. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: In addition to the references provided by Oaktree above, I easily found other peer review papers[https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16070939][https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25476] and I knew what this stuff was before I came to this AFD because I've watched a couple of youtube videos about it (although those would classify as WP:SPS). TarnishedPathtalk 08:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • :Neither of these papers is directly about the product itself but rather about the densified wood technology on which it is based. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:Keep. Passes GNG. [https://newatlas.com/materials/superwood-stronger-steel-inventwood/] [https://techcrunch.com/2025/05/12/inventwood-is-about-to-mass-produce-wood-thats-stronger-than-steel/] [https://cen.acs.org/materials/nanomaterials/Liangbing-Hu-makes-wood-stronger-than-steel/100/i7] [https://www.fastcompany.com/91334748/superwood-stronger-than-steel-its-coming-to-building-near-you] [https://futurism.com/startup-superwood-steel] [https://www.nzgeo.com/stories/super-wood/] [https://www.newsweek.com/super-wood-inventwood-construction-production-2072071] [https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25476] [https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/revolutionary-superwood-stronger-than-steel] [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00170-024-13155-0] [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/inventwood-mass-produce-wood-stronger-140000878.html] TurboSuperA+(connect) 08:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Merge to InventWood (or merge InventWood to here). We don't need both articles for a product that hasn't even entered production yet. Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • :This suggestion aligns with WP:NPRODUCT: {{tq| In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article.}} That is exactly the case here. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Y'all should really be smacking the sources you find if nothing else into References on the page, even if you lack time or motivation to build the page. Article quality/length isn't a valid deletion reason but you should log the Refs there for future editors. Remember WP:TURD! -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • :There is a template called {{tl|Refideas}} exactly for that! (No comment on the merits of the article itself, I haven't checked all the sources) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge The articles being cited here for significant coverage actually fail that. Notability is not based on a burst of coverage that lacks enduring coverage. Further, all said articles are just regurgitating the press release from the company, which makes them neither secondary nor independent for purposes of assessing notability. Also, WP:NORG applies here being a commercial product, setting the bar for sources much higher. Masem (t) 03:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reads like a press release. The product promoted is only a flash in the pan so far. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC).

{{clear}}

: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.