Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rydberg matter


 * 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 per the snowball clause. –MuZemike 16:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Rydberg matter

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article looks nice - well written, pictured, and cited to peer-reviewed articles, but, there are several worrying issues which I bring to your consideration:
 * The article is apparently written by Prof. Holmlid and is almost exclusively sited to his work. It is also used as an extension of the personal homepage of Prof. Holmlid.
 * Google books search for "Rydberg matter" returns a few entries, again coupled to papers by Holmlid.
 * Seach on Web of Science reveals that Prof. Holmlid has published 158 articles ( none in major journals ) with 2154 citations, 1863 of which are self-citations. With all do respect to the author, this does not go along with basic WP policies, such as WP:COI, WP:NOTABILITY, etc. Materialscientist (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. None of the issues above are such that cannot be solved with editing, and for deletion policy this means the article can be kept. Yes, there are COI issues and it looks more like the work of a single research group, yet it doesn't make it non-notable, nor it seems fringe research, given the sheer amont of peer-reviewed papers on the subject. Also it seems Prof.Holmlid is not the only one to acknowledge the thing -see a search of "rydberg matter" -holmlid on Gscholar. For sure the article needs help, but AfD is not the way to go -better to bring it to the attention of Wikiproject Physics, if it hasn't already been done, for example. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep there are many cites to other people than Holmid, & some of Holmid's papers are in first rate journals, such as MNRAS.   COI is not reason to delete, but to edit--probably a few too many references to his own group are given.    DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There's nothing wrong with citing yourself, if you're a famous professor. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 21:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, references clearly show notability. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The statement by Materialscientist that none of my 186 publications is in major journals is wrong. I have published in Phys. Rev. Lett, Phys. Rev. A, J. Chem. Phys., J. Phys. B, PCCP, MNRAS, ApJ, Langmuir, J. Catal. etc. etc. all with high impact factors. Why use such erroneous information? Holmlid (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I was thinking about that your references on Rydberg matter do not originate from those journals. Materialscientist (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep even if significant rewrite is necessary to fix the COI and neutrality issues. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. A cursory examination of the 44 references indicates that the topic has been discussed in secondary sources. The alleged neutrality issues stemming from WP:COI can be solved by editing. Did anyone notice it's WP:SNOWing in here? Pcap ping  11:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I would note one thing and appreciate feedback on that. There are several comments here that there is a COI issue and it can be resolved by editing, but there is no advice on how exactly this can be done and who will do that. The issue was raised at WP:PHYS and found no solution. It is not trivial to find substitute sources for this rare topic. Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Use WP:SECONDARY sources, like review papers written by someone else. This appears to be one. Pcap ping  15:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No doubt, secondary sources would be great (see the 2nd nomination comment though), but the one you mentioned is devoted to isolated Rydberg atom, isn't it? Materialscientist (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it also discuss "evidence for a collective excitation of Rydberg matter"? I'm obviously not physicist, but it's hard for me to believe that among all those papers not written by Holmlid there's no critical assessment of this topic... Pcap ping  06:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, the solid experimental material shows that the topic is a real matter independently who obtained it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.254.207 (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Stubbify. The snow that has fallen is not yet deep enough to cover the concerns that this article arouses in its present state, despite the arguments advanced above. The topic of Rydberg matter, rather like cold fusion, is, in my judgement, the preserve of a band of enthusiasts but has yet to achieve mainstream acceptance. Most of the references in the article are to original research literature and the article reads like a paper of original research pushing the particular POV that Rydberg matter does actually exist. Because of the approach taken by the article, an innocent reader could be misled into thinking that the subject has more mainstream acceptance than it does. This leads me to conclude that because the topic is on the fringe it is not suitable for a full encyclopaedic treatment at this stage. I suggest that it be stubbified to a few lines, its speculative and non-mainstream nature made clearly manifest and its references cut down proportionally. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep and SNOW close Doc Quintana (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2010 (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.