Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radioactive ion beam optimization


 * 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 delete. Considering that a large portion of the article is a (possible) copyright violation, there is a lack of references to support the current content, and notability is uncertain in the comments below, this is a case where WP:TNT is the reasonable course. This deletion shouldn't be a reason for someone not to restart the page as a properly sourced article (indicating notabilty) and written in one's own words. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Radioactive ion beam optimization

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The topic of optimizing radioactive beams is not of general interest, and is not the subject of scholarly research. While the design and construction of RIB facilities certainly warrants coverage in wikipedia, the actual details of optimizing the beam are entirely specific to a given facility, and of little interest to anyone other than the operators of that facility. Further, the content of this article is so incoherent as to justify stubification at minimum, since there's little that can be salvaged here. PianoDan (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I phrased that poorly - there is definitely research on improving ion beams. However, this is definitely a niche, very technical topic, and not something which belongs here. PianoDan (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (spout)  @ 14:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (chew)  @ 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: there certainly is something wrong with the article (in its present state, at least) though niche interests per se are not a problem on Wikipedia. More problematic is the essay-like tone and structure, and that half of the article is a verbatim quote of someone's thesis—not promising signs of a notable concept. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 04:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove the copyvio, rewrite the lead and keep. (My assumption is that RIBO is a procedure or science which physicists are actually pursuing; if not, and the term is just one man's non-adopted pet label, then delete.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2015 (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.