Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dielectric relaxation as a chemical rate process


 * 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   speedy keep. per withdrawn nomination JForget  22:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Dielectric relaxation as a chemical rate process

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

Too special; outdated material (W. Kauzmann published in the 1940s); extensive citation but no reference given; no substantial links pointing here Marie Poise (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and clean up the article. None of the reasons given by the nominator are reasons for deletion. We cover specialised material. If it was notable in 1940, it is notable now. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep agree with Bduke V8rik (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me try to deepen my argument: The bulk of the article was carelessly hacked in by a one-time user in 2007. Since then, a number of people have made a few formal corrections, but nobody has touched the contents. Nobody has ever assessed correctness and relevance of the text; nobody has looked up the Kauzmann reference; nobody has cared to integrate the article into the link structure of dielectric articles.

If you insist on "keep" here, then this basically means: anybody can get any summary of any scientific work into WP, regardless whether the work is correct or not, regardless whether the summary is correct. Someone will wikify the text, and then it will never be questioned again. If a fool proposes deletion, you can be sure some optimists will oppose: keep, you never know, some day someone might make something useful out of this stub.

Note also: had I deleted two paragraphs of comparable notability and quality from a longer article, nobody would have said a word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marie Poise (talk • contribs) 23:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Vote for merge with dielectric. Ashley Payne (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That does not really give it a chemistry context. I'm sort of neutral on this, as I just do not have the time to fix it. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  10:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * at the chemistry desk we are patient people. Just waiting for someone to come along and expand the article. Example: this article in 2006 with just 4 lines and one reference from 1968 was converted to a big article three years later in 2009! V8rik (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ere we waste more time on an article that doesn't merit it, I withdraw my deletion proposal. -- Marie Poise (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge to Dielectric as this material, as it stands, makes no sense out of context. Alternatively it should be moved (along with the corresponding material from dielectric to dielectric relaxation. as it stands alone, it's just incoherent. Mangoe (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2009 (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.