Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optical properties of selenium: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Optical properties of selenium: nitpicking |
|||
Line 19:
*'''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)
| |||