Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-laser


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Anti-laser

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

An article about a non-existent device with no proposed purpose. User insists on putting a half-baked substub into article-space. I have strenuously invited the creator to work on it in userspace, at User talk:Chrisrus/Anti-laser, but I have not been successful. -- Y not? 01:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are several reliable sources that have picked up on the idea: Wired, New Scientist, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * speedy keep Notable topic per its sources. Stubs are accepted, if not always encouraged. AfD is not for forced expansion or article clean-up. I feel an expansion tag would work in conjunction with notification of interested wiki projects (addition: which was done by the creating editor prior to nomination).--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above comments. It needs a clean-up, not deletion.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  08:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete by WP:Use common sense. One person, or one research team, said something might be possible and if possible might be useful. Newsmedia reported this to the public. There is really no information for an article, even if there are reliable sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how Use Common Sense applies to this AfD. I've read it over and don't see anything here where this article harms the project for existing with sources. The news media did pick it up, but it was also published in a scientific journal, and to be fair the news media we are discussing here are primarily science news media, some more popular than others. The combination of publication of the paper in a reputable journal and mass media coverage within the public-interested niche press seems to give the concept legs as both something that has captured the public's imagination AND a scientifically sound concept of interest to academics. Beyond this, in exploring the article laser I have found that the formatting of that article is based upon content forks to smaller articles. Even if the information regarding anti-lasers was suggested as a merge to laser the MOS for that article seems to dictate that anti-lasers would end up a stub content fork anyway.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article does not harm WP or anyone else. I just think that when nothing definate is known about a topic it's hard to have an encyclopedia article on it. WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball could also be invoked. Anyway if people want to know about it all they have to do is google "anti-laser." Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your same argument could hold true for Tachyon particles or any other theoretical physics item. An anti-laser isn't really a "device" it's a concept and having been published in a reputable scientific journal it's a concept that has some weight in the scientific community. WP:Crystal says "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." I feel this doesn't apply because the reliable sources confirm that a device based on the principals of an anti-laser is being actively developed at Yale University. It's not speculation, it is confirmed with sources. This, however, is still only a piece of the article's subject matter. Crystal goes on to discourage debunking of accepted scientific information with speculation that it may be incorrect. As of this writing the principal is circulating the scientific community and the article takes care to note the theoretical nature of the concept. I agree that anyone who wants to know about anti-lasers can google it, but is that not counter-productive to the project? If it's a notable enough concept to have such an array of reliable third party sources that anyone could easily google for their information why should wikipedia refuse to publish on it. I don't want to go into WP:Other stuff exists territory, but there are a number of articles here on theoretical science with not nearly the amount of reliable coverage. Once again, if the article was only something picked up by pop science magazine I'd be skeptical. If anti-lasers had only been proposed in a scientific journal with no outside exposure, I'd be skeptical. If this was only a proposed university project I'd be skeptical. The problem I have with this AfD is that we have all three of these working in unison to make for a fairly tight notability standard.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not yet shown to be notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC).
 * You must have meant "Not yet shown to be workable" or "...practicable" or "...useful". A simple look at the sources or a quick Google of the term will proves beyond reasonable doubt that this statement "Not yet proven to be notable" is false, because if it weren't notable, why has it been so widely noted?  As is the statement "not of serious interest to notable experts in the field" thus shown to be false.  The anti-laser is notable, because it's been given so much attention by notable people in academica and in the notable science media.  People who are in a position to know what they are talking about think that it's notable.  So please agree that it is in fact notable (thereby changing your "delete" to a "keep", give some explaination why you continue to hold that it is not notable, or give some other reason why it should be deleted.  If not, this "Deletion Support" should be given no weight. Chrisrus (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  21:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)  Why has this been re-listed? What is your problem with this article? You have relisted in bad faith.
 * Keep. Article has plenty of sources which prove notability. I agree with Chrisrus on this. — out of focus 17:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. This article is average/above average as compared to the vast majority of science & math articles. Unfortunately, there are many topics in physics & math that are more notable than this (e.g. are subject matter in school textbooks) that are either stubs or are completely missing; I'd like to see this fixed over time, but it takes time to do this. I've been here 3-4 years, and progress has been slow. Deleting existing stubs really doesn't help. linas (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, perfectly good stub w/references.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2010 (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.