- 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The result was Keep as exoelectron emission; nomination withdrawn. --Itub (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Exoelectron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
It is possible that this article does not meet the WP:Notability criterion. It is also an orphan, and unreferenced. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 06:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a simple google search gave me 13,000 ghits - including some very interesting uses. I'm not a physicist, so can't sort through the good from the bad to reference this potentially very much larger article. I note that the article is no longer orphaned. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Must be notable if it has appeared in 860 books and 2070 articles according to Google Books and Google Scholar. I suggest moving it to exoelectron emission, which is in fact the term bolded in the lead of the article! --Itub (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to exoelectron emission. Ruslik (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if moved to exoelectron emission as suggested above. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 13:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.