Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiangle Light Scattering (MALS) and Differential Light Scattering (DLS)


 * 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. This has now been redirected, since the topic is relevant, there is no reason for deletion, discuss content on the talkpage. Tone 17:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Multiangle Light Scattering (MALS) and Differential Light Scattering (DLS)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

1. This page already exists in the form Static Light Scattering.

2. It also already exists in the form Multi-Angle Light Scattering (which is really an introduction that duplicates the Static Light Scattering page).

3. The topic Differential Light Scattering is confusing. It is not a common light scattering technique. If the topic does merit an article in Wikipedia, the topic merits its own page.

4. The initials in the title are confusing (MALS and DLS). The initial DLS is more frequently used for dynamic light scattering.

5. The article is primarily commercial, focusing on the efforts of the Wyatt company.

6. The references are specialized, vanity references.

7. The original author, Wyatttech has not resolved any of these issues. Promised images have not been supplied. It is no longer reasonable to expect that they will be resolved.

LightScatteringGuy (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- - 2/0 (cont.) 15:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and discuss a merge, if necessary through WP:Dispute Resolution. AfD  is not for editing questions, but probably we should start with a single good article.  It is obvious there is relevant material here that is not in the other two articles--the history section,for example. Additionally, I at least, though certainly not an expert--it's been quite a while since I took the course in this--find the first 4 paragraphs of the theory section here, the part before the mathematics, here a good deal more informative than anything in the DLS article. On the other hand, the mathematics, and data analysis parts on the Static light scattering article, are much better. The separate Multi-angle light scattering article should probably be merged in as an introduction.    DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The history section is biased in favor of a single company. Note the links.  LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you mean when you write "DLS article" in your sentence about the theory? Do you mean dynamic light scattering?  The math in dynamic light scattering is very different than what is written here.  This article confuses a well-established technique (dynamic light scattering) with a much more minor technique (differential light scattering).  And that confusion is part of why this article should not exist (my point 3). LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do you think the issues with the article will be fixed now? They were not fixed after the first deletion discussion (the article was proposed for speedy deletion, which was removed) and move/merge discussion (move/merge was discussed on the talk page, but not implemented). LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep all the raised problems have been fixed (by myself) within one minute. Afd is not an instrument for article improvement. On (1,2) Existence of several articles on subtopics of one field is not a reason for Afd - this one is strong enough to stand on its own. Multi-Angle Light Scattering was a stub which I merged into this article. Other mergers, if feasible are to be discussed elsewhere. (3) is not an Afd issue. The author has apparently proved by his references and discussion at talk page that this topic is notable. Afd is not an instrument to resolve scientific discussions (4) is fixed. (5) is unjustified. (6) defies WP:RS (7) Does not apply here. Materialscientist (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article looks like it can stand at the moment. However, has anyone made an effort to determine if the original version was copied from elsewhere?  It looks suspiciously like a patent application.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Argument against deletion of Multiangle Light Scattering
It is surprising why so much effort has been expended to have this article deleted rather than improved. All known objections are addressed below, however, it should be noted that the scientific community has been much better served by those who have taken the initiative to edit the article rather than constantly nominate it for deletion:

1.	This page does not already exist in the form of Static_Light_Scattering. This argument was refuted in the original discussion regarding deletion. SLS is a physical phenomenon while MALS is a method by which SLS is measured, and in particular, a method by which SLS measurements may be used to characterize molecules and particles.


 * The nominator does not agree with the refutation, hence the current process. LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

2.	While Multi-angle light scattering does address some issues, the present article is much more complete. As Materialscientist suggested, the Multi-angle Light Scattering article was a stub which has been expertly merged into this article.


 * The stub remained persistently unmerged until the deletion process began. While Materialscientist claims that a deletion proposal is not a mechanism to improve an article, the empirical evidence is the opposite.  By the time this article is fixed, it will look astonishingly like the static light scattering article.  I waited in vain to see if others would find a different path to fix the article and prove me wrong.   LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

3.	Lightscatteringguy’s point here (and in point 4) is very valid. Differential Light Scattering is an antiquated term (as addressed in the article) and should not have been included in the title. Editing by wikiusers has remedied this issue. The term itself within the article, however, is justified, as for a time it was a term of art and thus aids in the disambiguation between Dynamic Light Scattering and a MALS technique to which many references have been made in articles in the late 20th century.


 * Differential Light Scattering without the DLS abbreviation is much more clear.  LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

4.	As mentioned in #3 above, the use of DLS as an acronym for the antiquated term Differential Light Scattering could be considered confusing. This is another proper argument for the editing of the article – not for its deletion.


 * see above. I do not see much merit in editing an article that should not exist.   LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

5.	The article is not primarily commercial in nature. There amounts to one entire sentence in the article dedicated explicitly to Wyatt instrumentation. While other references are made, it is indisputable that Wyatt played an important part in the development and commercialization of MALS instrumentation and analysis. To say that references to the company which aided in the innovation and development of the technique amount to a commercial entry is like saying that references it International Business Machines are inappropriate in the discussion of photocopying. It should be added that many references to other institutions who also pioneered MALS instrumentation are made in the article, and if there are innovations not cited, for example more references to Brookhaven Instruments, the article should be edited to include them, rather than constantly nominating the article for deletion. It should be noted that the article has been properly edited to include relevant information by developers and manufacturers of competing instrumentation, which only adds to the value of the entry.


 * Let us see what other editors have to say about this topic. Some disinterested admin will need to make that decision (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed).   LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

6.	Admittedly, the point about vanity references is not fully understood. All articles are originally penned by a single individual, and said individual has the experience of her/his own experience. If other references are valid, they should be added, but it cannot be held against the author that s/he has not read every article on a given subject and is instantly required to recall and reference them. Each citation is relevant and supports the discussion appropriately.


 * Well, reference 18 was created as the basis of a few advertising campaigns and would be better served by citing, for example Chemical Abstracts. I cannot figure out why reference 13 is relevant.  Also, see smokefoot's discussion on references and conflict of interest on the article discussion page.   LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

7.	The article has been edited, but is it truly the sole duty of the original author to improve wiki articles? Previous arguments have been addressed, and it had been thought, satisfactorily. However the efforts of a single wiki-user/editor to have this article deleted rather than improved has proven problematic. The issue of the figures is an unfortunate one. The originally intended images have been delayed (some indefinitely) as it is not yet certain which would meet the strict Wikipedia copyright requirements. References to the figures no longer appear in the article, but may be replaced if/when it is believed that the relevant figures are available and deemed to satisfy the wiki-requirements.


 * I have submitted two deletion requests. The first was removed without discussion, which is consistent with how I understand the rules.  This is the second, and to my understanding "real" discussion.  And, I did not submit the second until others were given a chance to change the direction of the article.   LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Other issues raised in this discussion: The history section favors a single company: This is believed to be untrue, as addressed in section 5 above. Further, if there is history relevant to the development of MALS instrumentation and measurement, the article should be amended to include it. Dynamic Light Scattering is distinct from MALS, and the equivalency of DLS to “differential light scattering” no longer appears in the article. This article is original, however, it was penned initially for Wikipedia by an experienced patent agent, which may explain why Slawomir Bialy notices the similarity. It is believed that the above arguments address all of the outstanding issues relating to this article. These arguments, along with edits made to the article by other users, should put to rest the desire to have the entry deleted. It is therefore requested that the deletion consideration be removed. If it is still the belief of the objector that the article be removed, the decision will absolutely be appealed.


 * I note that the deletion template has been removed from the article. But, it seems early (the discussion should last 7 days).  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed.  While I am anxious that a full discussion take place, I have not withdrawn the submission.   LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article has its merits and merger may be a sensible option to preserve its valid components. Rosser Gruffydd 21:44, 19 September 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.