Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optical properties of selenium: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Optical properties of selenium: nitpicking |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
===[[:Optical properties of selenium]]===▼
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was '''merge''' to [[Selenium#Physical properties]]. Due to the technical nature of this material, the merge should be done by a subject matter expert. Please read the full discussion here for guidance on what material should be merged and what should be left out. -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 13:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
▲===[[:Optical properties of selenium]]===
:{{la|Optical properties of selenium}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optical properties of selenium|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 8#{{anchorencode:Optical properties of selenium}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Optical_properties_of_selenium Stats]</span>)
:({{Find sources AFD|Optical properties of selenium}})
The purpose of this article appears less to give the optical (and thermoanalytical, electrical and dielectric) properties of selenium (of which if actually provides scant information), and more to describe the research methods that a certain researcher has used to ascertain those properties, and largely to hang a bunch of citations to the author's own papers. The topic of the article (various physical properties of selenium) would be better covered within the body of the [[selenium]] article itself.
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science|list of Science-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 16:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)</small>
*'''Redirect''' to [[selenium]]. I'm not really seeing much worthwhile for a merge since it's mostly just being used to self-cite, so just redirecting should be fine. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 16:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
::I'll also clarify due to some comments below for a merge that I did look over the article having a chemistry background, and I didn't find anything really relevant to merge. It was all pretty much just [[WP:COATRACK]] content not really talking about optical properties (even though the text sounds technical), but instead saying certain experiments have used selenium tangentially. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 17:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Kingofaces43}} I wouldn't characterize the experiments as "having used selenium tangentially" -- the research carried out by Jafar et al appears to involve investigating the nature of selenium thin films as used (or potentially used) in various applications (smart phone screens, imaging sensors, etc.) But the article doesn't actually report any of the research findings, instead concentrating on the research methodology.
::::That's essentially what I was referring to in that there's nothing really in the article itself that's feasible for a merge. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 17:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::The ''Wikipedia article'' that currently exists has little to merge, but the ''references'' from there may be useful. [[User:Tigraan|<span style="font-family:Tahoma;color:#008000;">Tigraan</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tigraan|<span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me</span>]]</sup> 18:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' into [[Selenium]] by a knowledgeable and impartial editor, as some of the citations in [[Optical properties of selenium]] may be worth keeping. <b>~</b> <
* '''Merge''' as above. The evident COI in 6 of the citations indicates the likelihood of bias and indeed overtechnicality. The properties of a thing are, well, core to its being and equally core to the main article, which is [[selenium]]. We won't need to talk much about the properties, just to name and cite them, and the main article is the place for that. By the way, nom, a merger doesn't require to be brought to AfD. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 18:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
::6 out of 16 is evident COI. if the article was writen by any other person, it will still refer to these exact six citations. it is like saying there are too many Hawking citations in the black hole radiation article! --[[User:Tarawneh|Tarawneh]] ([[User talk:Tarawneh|talk]]) 19:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Line 19 ⟶ 24:
*'''Comment''' After a glance at Google Scholar, I am thoroughly unimpressed by the argument made above that {{tq|Mousa Jafar [is] a leading scientist in [that] field}} and that the reference-bombing would be the same in an impartially-written article. In the refs, [http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/40452 this] is from 2014 and has 4 cites (including two self-cites) so far, [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10854-015-4156-z that] is almost two years old and has 3 cites (2 of which self-cites). [http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10043-017-0311-5 This] has 2 cites including one self-cite, but it is fairly recent. Maybe semiconductor research is a low-cite field, but I fear this is the academic equivalent of a [[WP:WALLED|walled garden]].
:In light of the above, I get a distinct [[WP:LINKSPAM]] feeling - but this should not prevent us to improve existing articles. There might be material from the sources that can be brought to the [[selenium]] article, but it is going to need a topic expert - I am moderately familiar with semiconductors, yet I could not make heads or tails of [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10854-015-4156-z this ref]. [[User:Tigraan|<span style="font-family:Tahoma;color:#008000;">Tigraan</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tigraan|<span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me</span>]]</sup> 13:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
::I am really sorry for the way my fellow Wikipedians are handling this, as there is clear misunderstanding of the way research is distributed and evaluated in the industry. To get what I mean please try to find any work done through the industry R&D using google scholar. Using google scholar to as a tool to evaluate such works is equivalent to searching for surgeon in a library; Dah, every thing should be there!
::'''low-cite field, and academic equivalent of a [[WP:WALLED|walled garden]]'''! Really! You my friends are giving such a judge based being moderately familiar with semiconductors! I am sorry, but I fail to get the point; your are judging this based on your lack of deep understanding of completely un-relevant topic! Based on your backgrounds my friends, can you please at least try to explain the chart in article?
::Citation spamming!!! "Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia". Please try to provide a better references, instead of [[WP:EQ|accusing]] others of citation spamming. I am not judging your research abilities, if you can find better references, then please do. If you think that selenium article needs to be expanded then please start working on it. No one is stopping you. But for God's sakes, please stop moving this into a [[WP:WARZONE|WARZONE]]; not find anything wrong with the article content doesn't mean attacking the contributes to push for ending the article existence. Personally, I feel this this hole thing of requesting a marge of this article, using an AFD, and defending it, is really based on nothing but a [[WP:BLINDMEN|BLINDMEN]] judgement. --[[User:Tarawneh|Tarawneh]] ([[User talk:Tarawneh|talk]]) 06:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
:::I do not think you understand how it works here, despite your citing of multiple guidelines. Being more familiar with the topic X than another editor does not give you the right to dismiss their concerns about how an article about X is written. <small>If it worked this way, Wikipedia would be flooded with articles claiming all sorts of nonsense written by self-called topic experts (for an extreme example, head to [[crystal healing]] and ask yourself if this is what the dream article of a "topic expert" would look like).</small> That the article is [[WP:DUE|overly detailed]], [[WP:COATRACK|not really about what the title says]], and [[WP:CITESPAM|spammed with links of dubious value]] are problems that non-topic experts can evaluate.
:::For the record, if I tried to read one of the refs (having access to it and some training in reading scientific papers, which may not be the case of many AfD editors), it is because I believed I could extract value out of it for the [[selenium]] article. I could not, but I readily admitted someone else maybe could. But I am not sure anyone will want to try, given your reaction. [[User:Tigraan|<span style="font-family:Tahoma;color:#008000;">Tigraan</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tigraan|<span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me</span>]]</sup> 14:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
{{cot|title=Some more posting about the "not many cites on GScholar" argument, collapsed as to not clutter the page, even though the above makes me feel compelled to answer.}}
My point about "not many cites on GScholar" was a tangential one, but your reaction is interesting. It is not a great metric, because some fields cite more than others, etc. but your answer is (paraphrased) "it is used much in the industrial R&D, just not cited in academic articles". Very well, so it is unprovable. In that case, it would be great to drop the appeal to authority "X is a great scientist and wrote the article, hence the article should be safe from deletion unless an even greater scientist comes" (which BTW was not a good argument against deletion to start with). [[User:Tigraan|<span style="font-family:Tahoma;color:#008000;">Tigraan</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tigraan|<span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me</span>]]</sup> 14:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
{{cob}}
*Side note: the article content was copied into [[Draft:Physical_properties_of_lead_iodide]]. Not sure what to make of it. On its face it is a new user copying a current article as a template to make their own, but I have a hard time to believe they found the article under discussion here by chance. [[User:Tigraan|<span style="font-family:Tahoma;color:#008000;">Tigraan</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tigraan|<span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me</span>]]</sup> 14:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to the extent of adding some of the content to [[Selenium#Physical_properties]], and evaluating the worth of the references and porting over what's topical and relevant of these (slimming down the over-representation of that single work group). As it stands, this reads like the abstract of a methods paper - not material that requires its own article. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]</span> <small>([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])</small> 10:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||