- 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 Merge/Redirect to Paul Harteck. Appears to already be mentioned in this article; any further relevant information can be merged in, in an encyclopedic style. Black Kite 09:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Harteck Process (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This article was listed under unassessed Military history articles, so I assessed it yesterday, but after a careful look at the article a few things about it raise red flags, enough so that I feel an afd for the article is justified. Top at the list was this now removed line "Much of the information recounted here about the Harteck Process can be found in the meticulous research of author David Irving in his book the 'Virus House' which can be downloaded online. The same book is also known by another title 'Hitler's Atomic Scientists.' The following is based on notes from the book and other sources.", which leads me to believe this may be a copyright violation. Oberiko (talk · contribs) respond to my request for a second opinion, and reported that a Google Book search did not find a single result for "Harteck Process", and most web results were from forums. In addition the article itself states that the Iriving was widely discredited, and we have heard nothing from the physics project on this. As a result I feel the best course of action is to file an afd for the article and see what the community thinks, then move from there. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I do not feel there is enough evidence to support having the article here, it seems iffy to me. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —TomStar81 (Talk) 18:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unless suitable references are included and quickly. ~ Dreamy § 22:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, if it is indeed unverifiable. Carom (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the first half of the article is verifiable, and the sources for the article under Paul Harteck discuss it --and the biographical article there does briefly describe his separation process. which is essentially the ultracentrifuge separation of uranium isotopes, one of the techniques used in the US atomic weapons project during the war, and by it and other countries thereafter. There is now an abundance of sources. But I have never known it called by his name--that is presumably a neologism from somewhere--possibly Irving. The material on the use of the process is South Africa etc shouldbe moved to the appropriate articles. Walker, M. German National Socialism and the Quest for Nuclear Power, 1939-1949. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1989 is sa standard source, though there has been more work subsequently. , relevant page at [1]. the details are verified there--the articlehere seems accurate, though not based on good sourcing.
- Merge into Paul Harteck (and elsewhere as appropriate) and source as required. Dr. Harteck's work is notable, but as the preceding editor observes, the "Harteck Process" appears to be an innovation. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found some literature of the isotop enrichment of Harteck with ultracentrifuge separation during the war, so the article contains a true core, but the rest is highly critical and sourced only by one book, which claims to be well sourced. So in the ultracentrifuge separation article there should be a mentioned that Harteck produced Uranium upto 5% enriched with this metode in germany befor 1945. I would like to keep and rework the article, but I have no time in the next weeks!--Stone (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider copying the article in its current for and moving it into your userspace by creating a user subpage (User:Stone/example). In this manner you can keep the page and work on sourcing the material after the afd concludes. If you can in fact find additional sources for the article you are welcome to place it back here. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I copied it and will try to improve it sometime!--Stone (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider copying the article in its current for and moving it into your userspace by creating a user subpage (User:Stone/example). In this manner you can keep the page and work on sourcing the material after the afd concludes. If you can in fact find additional sources for the article you are welcome to place it back here. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge- True; the article in its current state is not exactly what you might call one of the best contributions to come from the WP community, but the problem is not to be solved by deleting it. Merging it would seem like the best solution here, I nonetheless can see the article being kept after some modifications. Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 13:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Improve the "See also" link on the Paul Rosbaud page; add a link from the Paul Harteck page; add a link from the Isotope separation page. (Then rewrite the Harteck process page using a more encyclopedic style! ;-) (sdsds - talk) 01:05, 1 March 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.