Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFM Nanolithography


 * 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 delete per WP:NOR, a core policy that cannot be modified by consensus. This is a research paper, not an encyclopedia article. All editors are free to write an actual article on this topic. Sandstein (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

AFM Nanolithography

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

How-to type essay, and, despite the number of references, seems kind of original researchey. Wikipedia is not for things like this. Prod was removed by author without comment. J Milburn (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pretty clearly a cut and paste job of someone's term paper. "For this project I used SAMs..." etc. eaolson (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Total WP:OR. Editor must've been proud of his or her paper... &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep!!. see article referenses, they are good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.14.164 (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)  — 201.141.14.164 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: Please note comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/AFM Nanolithography. J Milburn (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yep, this does seem like it started life as a term paper (but a pretty good one). It also needs some editing help with the sources. Nonetheless, this is a notable, useful topic. I certainly don't think this represents original research unless the author is an advanced engineer/scientist and, in any case, the sources are provided, if not entirely clearly. I can see no valid grounds for deletion. Tim Ross  22:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a how-to guide? If an article was written on this topic, even if it was a bad one, that's fine, but this isn't an article. J Milburn (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The topic does seem like a notable one, per a quick Google search . The use of an atomic force microscope for lithography is mentioned in the Nanolithography article, along with several other methods. The article certainly needs an extreme makeover, but hopefully there is an expert up to the task. I'll create a link from the Nanolithography page as well as a post plea for copy editing on the page itself. Teleomatic (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The "Experimental procedures" section is unencyclopediac and should be removed or replaced, but the rest is certainly appropriate material. Antony-22 (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong maybe. The topic seems notable, but this is someone posting a lab report, which needs such a complete rewrite that we might as well delete it until someone decides to write an encyclopedic article about it. --Itub (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I made some improvements to the experiment procedures part. I hope more peolple can help editing this article because is a notable topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Da.delvalle (talk • contribs) 15:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.