Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optical properties of selenium

Optical properties of selenium

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Selenium by a knowledgeable and impartial editor, as some of the citations in Optical properties of selenium may be worth keeping. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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! --Tarawneh (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, This article is part of the work done by wikimedians of the levant user-group, through its version of the Education program. The article is mainly contributed by Mousa Jafar (a 68 y old Prof.), a leading scientist in his field. We were really lucky that he even gave us the time to write that stub for Wikipedia. The article was intended to be about Physical properties of selenium (which is a huge deal in right now). It was renamed into Optical properties of selenium by WikiDan61 ( a move that I did not event try to argue with at the time). Prof. Mousa released some charts from his work under CC, and he is already preparing for a few other articles. Prof. Mosa is not a Wikipedian, and he is not after a "single page (stub) citation" fame and for sure he is not into the "hang a bunch of citations to the author's own papers" argument, you can simply refer to References to check that. lets all AGF, especially in a retiring Prof. He was welcomed with a BITE simply cause he had no idea how to talk balk on the wiki system, and his work is being undermined by my fellow Wikipedias, whom mostly have no idea what is the article is really about. The stub is bombed by COI, and at the same time by too technical templates! and then finally by this AFD. The stub is a legit work, it is a perfect contribution for a content that address a very important field. --Tarawneh (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to explain. It was clearly a good user group experience. However, as far as the article is concerned, we're just of the opinion that an element's properties belong with the element's article. And since we think some of the cited material may be useful over at the main article, we're arguing for a merge not a delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap. Thanks for your comment. Physical properties of selenium is a very important field in the smartphone industry. I do agree that the physical properties section in the selenium article should be expanded, but merging is not the way to do it. It is like requesting the merge of Car article into the uses section of the Steel artile. Cars might be a good item to be mentioned in the steel article :P . No one will request the merge of Nokia 5 into the Nokia article, simply cause they are two different connected things. Yes, they might look good together for some people, but that is not a solid merge excuse. --Tarawneh (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]