Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time-Domain Thermoreflectance

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. John254 00:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time-Domain Thermoreflectance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Yet another instance of someone uploading their college paper onto Wikipedia. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per nom. Keep I missed the refs first time around. Serves me right for procrastinating papers by using wikipedia. RogueNinja_talk 22:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Hang on, this is not for speedy deletion. I reads like sound science and it has references. How do you know it is a college paper? That, on its own, is not a reason for deletion. Is it notable? I suggest asking some of the science projects for input. Maybe it overlaps with other articles and should be merged. Maybe it should be kept. It should not be deleted without further attention. --Bduke (talk) 00:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A small amount of googling [1] reveals 52 mentions in scholarly sources so the topic is more than a "college paper", and from following one of the links the origins of it seem to go back to 1986 (shame the article's refs don't but early days). It seems to be mainly a current interest of very few research groups though and I suspect the authors of this article belong to one of them so WP:NPOV is of concern, but that alone is not a reason to delete when it's only 3 days old. Related to Thermal conductivity#Measurement but there's already enough here that merging it there would unbalance the coverage of that article and this is at a much higher technical level. Qwfp (talk) 01:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to be a notable technique, with multiple mentions in journals and books. The article just needs some cleanup and wikification. --Itub (talk) 10:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article could be cleaned up, but it definitely serves a purpose and should be kept. Jgebis (talk) 16:00, 29 February 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.