Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceramic chemistry


 * 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. The rough consensus is to keep this page. Any concerns about the quality of the article and whether it should be merged may be addressed through the normal editing processes. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Ceramic_chemistry
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject matter nonexistent KingSupernova (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: More than enough WP:RS exist to write a detailed article about the chemistry of ceramics, including: The Chemistry of Ceramics (Wiley, 1996), Chemical Processing of Ceramics (CRC 2010), High temperature chemistry of inorganic and ceramic materials (Chemical Society, 1977) and the older Ceramic Chemistry (Davis Bros., 1912). I agree with comments on the Talk page that the article as it is currently written has serious issues, but it may still have WP:POTENTIAL were it to be rewritten; quality problems can be surmounted by ordinary editing.  My concern is that the topic may not be sufficiently differentiated from material already covered in other articles such as Ceramic, Ceramic materials and Ceramic engineering to warrant a separate Ceramic chemistry article. --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Full agreement with your suggestion that it's not sufficiently differentiated, and it should be covered in the other articles you note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.163.103.7 (talk • contribs) 15 February 2013‎


 * Speedy keep - ceramic chemistry doesn't exist? Bullshit.. A concern about whether this merits a standalone article is irrelevant: this AfD is trolling, very bad faith and should be incinerated. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * not sure if it is correct to add comment under other's comments, so please excuse me if not. This link is not support, as this is the commercial site of the person who created this Wikipedia article, and spammed other articles with the same, simply to promote his business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.163.103.7 (talk • contribs) 15 February 2013‎
 * this link also does not add support as the title is 'The chemistry of pottery' whereas this article is 'Ceramic chemistry': clearly related but is not the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.163.103.7 (talk • contribs) 15 February 2013‎


 * Keep Both Mike Agricola and Lukeno94 have demonstrated multiple reliable sources that go in depth on the subject of ceramic chemistry. Looking at the article and talk page comments, it is clear that the article mainly discusses one aspect of ceramic chemistry, which could be considered a non-neutral POV, but there is nothing preventing folks from filling out the article with a more general approach. In short, the topic is highly notable and the article problems surmountable per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, which suggests that this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support - it's a dreadfully badly written & flawed article .. and it rambles all over the place. Also, as has been noted by many people the article was created by an individual (who also spammed many other articles) to promote his commercial activities. What is classed here as 'ceramic chemistry' is part of the accepted disciplines of ceramic science and ceramic engineering. Existing Wikipedia articles, that include pottery, ceramic and ceramic engineering, cover the subject far better. 'Ceramic chemistry' is not notable given its inclusion in, the widely accepted terms, listed in the previous sentence. The removal of this article is simply a useful & valuable tidy up of material with no value: a bit of house-keeping. Should parts of this be considered of value (and potentially there's little, if any) then extract & add to the existing, superior articles & delete this mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.163.103.7 (talk • contribs) 15 February 2013‎
 * Keep. The article has some issues, especially the concentration on Raku.  However, chemistry of ceramics is very inherentrl notable topic (per others, plus my experience...it is not a random combination of things).  TCO (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I wish, if this IP was going to canvass people, they'd sign their posts properly. Being badly written and flawed is not a reason for deletion. The ONLY reason for deletion given by the nominator was that this subject matter doesn't exist: which is utter, utter bullshit. I've nuked the Raku section entirely, as it doesn't belong there. There is little or no evidence that it was created by just one person - I see three different accounts that have contributed majorly: 2 of which are SPAs and may be the same person, but the other has contributions outside the article. An article being promotional is not a grounds for deletion unless it was unrescuable - and this one was rescuable. By the way, for people whom didn't study Chemistry or Physics, glass is a ceramic, as is pottery (why the hell, mr IP, are you arguing that the Chemistry of pottery is not part of the Chemistry of ceramics?). AfD is not cleanup, nor is it for merger discussions. That's what the article talk is for. Hence why this AfD should be closed ASAP. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) "I wish, if this IP was going to canvass people" If you mean me then I have not canvassed anyone, (2) "There is little or no evidence that it was created by just one person", there is plenty of evidence, and this has been presented by other people. (3) "glass is a ceramic" this depends who is consulted. The classification of glass as a ceramic material is common in the US but less so in many other places. Many consider crystalline content to be a key part of ceramic material, and of course this would exclude glasses. I make no claim as to who is 'right' and who is 'wrong', but the inconsistency in definition means it is not possible to make such a definitive statement, (4) "why the hell, mr IP, are you arguing that the Chemistry of pottery is not part of the Chemistry of ceramics?" I did not, and (5) please could you not address profanities to me; this is both rude and unconstructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.163.103.7 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 18 February 2013‎


 * Hard to merge, better to leave alone. I looked at the other mentioned articles and a discussion of ceramic chemistry would not fit well in the existing articles.  (And I am very much a merge-ist.)  Even though what we have is not beautiful, would just leave it alone as half-built Wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 15 February 2013‎
 * Support - many faults and beyond rescue. And in respect of a preceeding comment re. the authorship: swearing is unnecessary, and the following clearly demonstrates that the article was created by a spammer promoting his business{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tonywhansen} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.87.208.163 (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Swearing is unnecessary, yes, but it is also valid in a case when the nominator has claimed this subject doesn't exist. That's the entire grounds for this nomination, hence why the AfD should be closed... The chemistry of ceramics is notable, and the article is definitely savable - I nuked the irrelevant stuff; the relevant stuff can be sorted. I can validly state this is savable - look at the history of Valmet 361 D to see how I fixed a much, much worse article than this one. Luke no 94  (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Further to your reply to 115.87.208.163: profanities are rude and unconstructive. And your defense of it is certainly counter to assuming good faith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.226.123 (talk • contribs) 18 February 2013‎


 * Strong support - an article created by a spammer on an unrecognised discipline that is awfully written and full of errors. And we are debating its deletion??? BTW - ceramic engineering is the recognised discipline, and university courses include: France ; India ; Korea ; Philippines, , ; Thailand ; UK , ; USA , , , . And ceramic chemistry? None — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.226.123 (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm assuming none of the IPs here have ever studied Physics and Chemistry... Also, every single one seems to be ignoring the fact that the nominator claims it doesn't exist, which is the sole grounds for nomination, thus this should've been closed. I'm concerned by the similar formatting of the IPs as well (the fact they all use support/strong support, and none of them sign their comments). 194.126.226.123 has completely ignored every single source in this AfD: and made completely irrelevant comments about the fact it doesn't have its own course (that would be because it is a module, or within a module...). 115.87.208.163 has made irrelevant comments about the original author of this, since the original author hasn't edited since 2011, and nor have any of the "alleged socks" edited since then, therefore this article is perfectly fixable. 203.163.103.7 makes partially, at least, incorrect statements about glass (I'm British, so don't try throwing in the "only Americans think this" point) and fully incorrect statements about pottery (which is blatantly a ceramic by any definition). I suggest the IPs read WP:SURMOUNTABLE as pointed out by Mike viking, and realize that articles have been fixed from far worse states than this - see my comment about Valmet 361 D. Anyone claiming ceramic chemistry doesn't exist is ignoring all sources presented here, let alone logic, and there are plenty of reliable sources presented by myself and Mike Agricola (no, I'm NOT arguing the spammer's website was a reliable source, I only presented that to show this subject matter exists!) to show the notability of this. Luke no 94  (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "I'm assuming none of the IPs here have ever studied Physics and Chemistry" You have now moved from the use of profanities to belittling people's academic backgrounds. This is also rude and unconstructive, and, in my case at least, incorrect.
 * "incorrect statements about glass" This is wrong. As stated previously the classification of glass as a ceramic material is common in the US but less so in many other places. For example: Glass not included: (1) EU - the Combined Nomenclature defines ceramic products as “obtained by agglomerating (by firing) earths or other materials with a high melting point generally mixed with binders, all of which materials have been previously reduced to powders or, from rock fired after shaping. Firing, after shaping, is the essential distinction between ceramic products and mineral or stone articles, which are generally not fired, and glass articles in which the vitrifiable compound has undergone complete fusion”, (2) UK - BS5416 defined ceramics as “materials generally made from a mixture of clays and other materials, distinguished from glass and glass ceramics by the fact that they are first shaped and then rendered permanent by firing at a temperature generally in excess of 1000oC.”, and (3) Even Wikipedia recognizes that a crystalline content can be a key part of the definition of ceramics, and hence glasses are excluded - “Because most common ceramics are crystalline, the definition of ceramic is often restricted to inorganic crystalline materials, as opposed to the noncrystalline glasses.” Where as for glasses to be include: (1) US - ASTM C242 defines a ceramic article as “an article having a glazed or unglazed body of crystalline or partly crystalline structure, or of glass, which body is produced from essentially inorganic, non-metallic substances and either is formed from a molten mass which solidifies on cooling, or is formed and simultaneously or subsequently matured by the action of the heat.”
 * "I'm British, so don't try throwing in the "only Americans think this" point)" I do not understand why you being British is relevant.
 * "fully incorrect statements about pottery (which is blatantly a ceramic by any definition)." No idea; I have never stated that pottery is not ceramic.
 * I'm very concerned about your attitude, which is to insult and swear at those who hold a different view to yourself.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.163.103.7 (talk • contribs) 20 February 2013‎
 * My attitude is one of pure annoyance at people whom have downright ignored everything I've provided here, even before I became a bit combative - remember, my original comment was simply to show that the nomination was completely invalid, which it definitely is. Deliberately misquoting me by removing words from my sentences doesn't help (I said "partially, at least, incorrect statements about glass" - not incorrect statements) and my comments about people's backgrounds are simply because if you do have a physics or chemistry background, assuming it's not totally the organic side of chemistry, you'd know ceramic chemistry was notable. If the US are the only country to view glass as a ceramic, it still belongs there, just mentioning the fact that only the Americans view it as a ceramic. My point about being British is that a lot of people would try to deviate from the topic by saying something irrelevant about Americans trying to own everything (or words to that effect). Also, was it not you who made the statement "'The chemistry of pottery' whereas this article is 'Ceramic chemistry': clearly related but is not the same."? If so, they're not the same, but they are still related and, as such, belong in the same article. Another example of ceramic chemistry is in ceramic exhaust coverings, where a ceramic is applied to improve heat dissipation and thus keep the exhaust cool - I haven't found a truly WP:RS on it, but it's been mentioned in Evo magazine, and here: . I know it has its own topic at Wikipedia, but it's still a branch of ceramic chemistry. Luke no 94  (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per sources provided by Luke as well as, ,  that describe ceramic chemistry, not just ceramic engineering. Diego (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - non-notable & unrecognized. IF this article contains anything good then add to the other, much better, articles mentioned (ceramic engineering, pottery, etc) GeoffreySuchart (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I looked at that, but the content does not really fit well in those articles. It is too much of a technical discursion.  Actually look at the articles and think how to merge the content.TCO (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

 Please let's keep this discussion civil and discuss the merits of the subject only. J04n(talk page) 11:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - the subject is notable and there are primary and secondary sources as provided by users MarkAgricola, Diego and Lukeno94; I'll add this notable book, published by Wiley in 1986, to the list of primary sources: "Science of Ceramic Chemical Processing" . The subject is relevant and there are a plethora of peer-reviewed books (see ), researches and experts in this very field. As a side note, the title of the article should be renamed to Ceramic Chemical Processing as it's a more accurate and scientific depiction of the topic. Toffanin (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm satisfied that sources for the chemistry of ceramics exist, and am somewhat taken aback by the suggestion that it somehow doesn't exist at a topic.  Whether this article is redundant to or should be merged with ceramic engineering is beyond the scope of an AfD discussion.  I would also point out that "Support" opinions are ambiguous; we usually say keep if we wish it kept, delete otherwise. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:51, 21 February 2013 (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.