Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optical conductivity


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Optical conductivity

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Stub with no references that hasn't been touched in years. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 07:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 07:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The subject is often discussed in sources, the German version also cites textbooks. – Thjarkur (talk) 08:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The current page is remarkably opaque (pun intentional) but the linked source explains it better and so our policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, a notable topic and I've added some sources to the article. It contains some WP:OR and needs more sources for verification but these are not reasons for deletion. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep These are not valid reasons for deleting an article. If you're bothered by its low quality, improve it, that's how Wikipedia works. Optical conductivity is definitely a thing, plenty of sources can be easily found. Tercer (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Unquestionably notable. I rewrote the text to be a bit clearer and put in some section breaks. PianoDan (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I was alerted by the Wikipedia SDZeroBot as the main author (roughly 50% as of May 3) of the deletion candidate. In my view (physics professor switched to IT), the content was/is accurate and should be useful as a first chunk of information. Admittedly, the article could use more (or better) explanations and visualizations. A thorough discussion can be found in my thesis at pages 276-291, available, e.g. at http://dmft.org/Bluemer/Thesis/bluemer_color.pdf (meta information: http://dmft.org/Bluemer/thesis.en.shtml or Amazon). Feel free to use any of the original material (i.e. text + color figures) in chapters 4.1 and 4.2 that you find useful. --Nils Blümer (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2021 (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.