Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enhancement or quenching of QD, Q-wire and QW radiations


 * 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   no consensus. Not sure anyone really knows what to do with this, but after 3 weeks there is certainly no consensus to delete. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  01:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Enhancement or quenching of QD, Q-wire and QW radiations

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural AfD. Was prodded under "No context/OR ". I'm neutral, but prodding would remove a lot of potential mergable material. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * merge if there is a suitable target (without context I can't work out what such a target would be) and it isn't original research. I wont stand in the way of a delete if that is consensus though. If kept, this article needs an introduction writing and wikification. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Needs a massive rewrite for us regular folks (if it's worth keeping); even the lead is unclear. Hairhorn (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 *  Keep for a whie  : The intro sentence is a tautology( "quenching is a way to quench"), or maybe a fancy was to explain that QW is an abbr. for quantum well but if the someone can develop the article it may have merit. I guess you could move it to a talk page in the mean time but I wouldn't throw it out until authors have some time to make it useful. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: The tautology was introduced in my quick attempt to wikify the article. I edited the article to (hopefully) remove the tautology.  Cheers Boghog2 (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The original author has shown no interest in the article beyond the first posting. (TimothyRias (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC))


 *  Keep  : The three provided references are reliable, neutral and verifiable Rirunmot (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They however in no way establish notability. (TimothyRias (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Very strong keep. I agree that the article is difficult to understand, because the contributor is super, extra, hyper specialist; however with an WP:AGF interest in creating an encyclopaedic entry on new class of light sources.  The challenge of Wikipedians is then to recognize that a new article, properly referenced with three peer-ref journal entries, has the potential to stay in this project to "record the knowledge of the world".  We could perhaps help to make the article accessible to ordinary people, perhaps we could improve it, but, Oh no, first we PROD it, and then AfD it, mostly because lack of insight.  This is a sad story.  Power.corrupts (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

So, if you just want to make a list of ways to make small things emit more light based on details of their smallness fine but an article that says that making them brighter makes them brighter still doesn't help an interested reader get brighter :) Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment:  : Well, we can't do peer review on original hypotheses but we do need to do a patent nonsense review and certainly a preponderance of eloquent jargon could be generated by an automated nonsense generator ( as long as it follows grammar rules). Someone needs to pass judgment on semantics- the article has to say something.


 * Weak deleteIf it is based on three good published sources it is not OR. How important it may be I cannot tell. Scopus shows very few articles referring to those 3, though they only 2008.  Our best practice with specific scientific work of this wsort would be to wait until there were more citations or some indication of obvious importance. DGG (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete (and merge where possible) The page does not have a suitable subject for an encyclopedic article. It basically reviews some recent research on how certain properties of certain constructs of a certain material depend on various factors. By itself this is not a notable subject. The material in this article can possibly be merged in to various other articles with the most likely candidates being: ZnO, quantum dot, quantum wire and quantum well. The article itself should be deleted since it is not a plausible redirect to any other article, but not before any salvageable material has been salvaged. (TimothyRias (talk) 12:53, 24 June 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.