Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ice-9

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash talk 23:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Ice-9
This article is implausible, and no verification has been forthcoming. -Tim


 * I have verifed that the references to a non-fictional Ice-9, otehr than as a metaphor, are invalid. I have placed several citations to that effect on the talk page. i have edited the article to refer exclusively to teh fictional Ice-9 in Cat's Cradle and its wider use as a metaphor. In this form i think it is worth keeping. DES (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable fictional allotrope which exists in popular culture independently of the source novel. Kappa 23:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Be aware that before the rewrite this articel claimed that there was a non-fictional substance of substantially the same properties, now being used for underwater construction. That was clearly a hoax. Check out the history of the article. DES (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Good rewrite. Keep it. Vizjim 23:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep now the hoax-related stuff has been removed. Would be nice to cite an example of the term Ice-9 being applied in the real world as indicated, though. 23skidoo 02:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. I've added a link to an academic journal article that uses the term in that way in its title. Is one example enough, do you think? DES (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep after rewrite, notable fictional material. -- Creidieki 04:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. Article needs a substantial clean-up however; at present it doesn't even identify the term's originator.  Demogorgon's Soup-taster
 * Have fixed that.Vizjim 09:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * A fine article now that the hoax material has been replaced. I also vote to keep and withdraw my original suggestion to delete. -Tim 12.0.237.66 16:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, now that is it is clear it is about a fictional substance. The fictional material is notable enough for an article. I remember reading something that discussed whether such a substance was possible (the conclusion was it was not). It references like that can be found, this article can be expanded. Jonathunder 18:10, 2005 September 12 (UTC)
 * I think you will find that at least some of this is in the links I added to the talk page. More might be worth finding. An obvious problem with the fictional Ice-9 is the energetics -- aligning molecules in a solid state generally releses significant energy, which would tend to disrupt the reaction -- but I don't have a specifc source for that off-hand. DES (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; I just stumbled upon this article and in its current state it would be absurd to delete it. Captain Segfault 06:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I quite agree (and thanks, as I wrote much of the current version). But look at the histroy and you will see why it was put on AfD. DES (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.