| Revision as of 15:21, 4 May 2009 editPhyschim62 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers33,631 edits speedy← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:17, 5 May 2009 edit undoKP Botany (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,588 edits →Solid-state ionics: select the text that doesn't belong and remove it, do this after clicking on the edit tab,Next edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| *'''Snowball keep--even the nominator no longer supports this''' Neither merge nor redirect. It's a field, not a material, and should be the one with the bigger article. It's like saying merge chemistry to oxygen. Just because the article isn't up to snuff on a perfectly valid topic (huge topic), and you don't know much about it, don't bring it here for AfD. No. --] (]) 03:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC) | *'''Snowball keep--even the nominator no longer supports this''' Neither merge nor redirect. It's a field, not a material, and should be the one with the bigger article. It's like saying merge chemistry to oxygen. Just because the article isn't up to snuff on a perfectly valid topic (huge topic), and you don't know much about it, don't bring it here for AfD. No. --] (]) 03:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Speedy delete''' under ]. This article simply exists to promote an external entity whose notability is far from proven (to put it politely). To take the simple semantic line, any article named ] should have a link from ], no? And wow! ] redirects to ]. On the other hand, the authors seems to claim that these are really special ]s, because they are ''also'' ]s (as if the others weren't): now where does ] redirect to? ]. There is absolutely nothing in this article worth saving except a pathetic example of self-promotion. It should be speedily deleted forthwith. ] ] 15:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC) | *'''Speedy delete''' under ]. This article simply exists to promote an external entity whose notability is far from proven (to put it politely). To take the simple semantic line, any article named ] should have a link from ], no? And wow! ] redirects to ]. On the other hand, the authors seems to claim that these are really special ]s, because they are ''also'' ]s (as if the others weren't): now where does ] redirect to? ]. There is absolutely nothing in this article worth saving except a pathetic example of self-promotion. It should be speedily deleted forthwith. ] ] 15:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| **'''Voila''' Soapbox taken care of. What bullsheet. Maybe someone will post spam in Bill Clinton's article and you speedy it. --] (]) 03:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:17, 5 May 2009
Solid-state ionics
- Solid-state ionics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
the article subject is virtually the same as fast ion conductor which is a more substantial article. Solid-state ionics appears to only exist for the purpose of plugging The Asian Society for Solid State Ionics. I would have no problem with a properly referenced article on this society, but doing it by a back-door fork is not good. SpinningSpark 22:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, as nominator. If deleted, its entry should also be deleted on the solid state dab page. SpinningSpark 22:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep There are tens of thousands of scholarly sources for this and the nomination seems to be arguing for a merger or rewrite. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
*Keep and consider a merge,(see below) The term is in fact used generally. Cf. Solid State Ionics, published by Elsevier, and having nothing whatever to do with the Asian Society for SSI. , andthe 300 or so books in WorldCat with that phrase I am not sure whether there is an actual distinction between this term and "fast ion conductors". If they are true synonyms, since WorldCat shows 131 books with the title Fast ion conductors , I am not sure which of the two is the more standard term. DGG (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- To clarify, I am not disputing that solid-state ionics is a recognised and widely used term. Solid-state ionics is the study of solid-state ionic conductors for which another term is fast ion conductor for which we already have an article. Besides the mention of the Asian Society for Solid State Ionics there is nothing in this article that is not already covered in much more detail in the existing article. I would not be in favour of merging in the material on the Asian Society without 3rd party references, ie not just the self-references there at present. So I guess I am proposing a redirect, but I did not want to do it unilaterally, hence the AfD. SpinningSpark 21:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have I think figured out the nature of the entry: The society holds a variety of local conferences, and publishes their proceedings in a series of books with a title or subtitle: Solid State Ionics, for example , . I have checked a number of these books, and essentially none of them are held by more than a few US/UK libraries. The present articles is very similar to their usual blurb for such a book, though I have not found the specific one. the society is unimportant; the conferences are unimportant. The correct course is to redirect the term as a synonym, if it is an exact synonym. the material on the society should not be merged. DGG (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Merge and/or redirect If the nominator isn't contesting the subject exists, then either merging the two or redirecting one is a better solution based on the commonality of the phrase. - Mgm| 11:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Snowball keep--even the nominator no longer supports this Neither merge nor redirect. It's a field, not a material, and should be the one with the bigger article. It's like saying merge chemistry to oxygen. Just because the article isn't up to snuff on a perfectly valid topic (huge topic), and you don't know much about it, don't bring it here for AfD. No. --KP Botany (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy delete under WP:SOAPBOX. This article simply exists to promote an external entity whose notability is far from proven (to put it politely). To take the simple semantic line, any article named Solid-state ionics should have a link from Ionic solid, no? And wow! Ionic Solid redirects to Ionic compound. On the other hand, the authors seems to claim that these are really special ionic compounds, because they are also solid electrolytes (as if the others weren't): now where does Solid electrolyte redirect to? Fast ion conductor. There is absolutely nothing in this article worth saving except a pathetic example of self-promotion. It should be speedily deleted forthwith. Physchim62 (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Voila Soapbox taken care of. What bullsheet. Maybe someone will post spam in Bill Clinton's article and you speedy it. --KP Botany (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)