Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spin polarized electron energy loss spectroscopy


 * 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. Primary concern seems to have been addressed by editors. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  22:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Spin polarized electron energy loss spectroscopy

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)
 * What part are you calling the original research? So far it's a pretty standard description of SPEELS. Can you specific the OR? I'm not seeing it. If it's only the last section, which I haven't edited thus far, could you refrain from the hyperboly and state that some of it is OR rather than claiming it's all OR? Maybe someone has edited the OR since you nominated? If that was the only problem and OR is gone, then it's time to stop wasting time on this. There is no point in discussing an AfD on this topic. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is as yet unpublished research. prod removed by anon IP editor with no other edits to their credit. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Looks like the creator, who shares the name with one of the researchers, Khalil Zakeri Lori, mentioned on (a page dedicated to the tests performed in this article from The Max Planck institute) is trying publish a paper straight to WP instead of going through academic channels. Fails WP:OR. Angryapathy (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC),
 * Changed to keep Kudos to the editors that removed the OR/copyvio portions of this article and shaping it into much, much better shape. Angryapathy (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note remove OR from article, don't delete encyclopedic topic due to OR in the article! --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * NOTE This is a copy of another Wikipedian article. Might be the same person, I don't know. - Warthog Demon  19:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Same account. Redirected. - Altenmann >t 20:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the same person and the same article. Angryapathy (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Except one has SPEELS in the title. This one appears to be vaguely sourced as well so it obviously should be added to this. As for my vote, I say delete both as original (and unpublished) research. - Warthog Demon  19:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How is this original and unpublished research? Please elaborate on this as requested above. If editors are going to vote to delete articles without any knowledge of the topic area as a method of getting them cleaned up, forget it. Where is the OR? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Preserve one version of the text, maybe at a subpage of the talk page at spin wave, and delete the resulting redirect. This text is original research and not really an encyclopedia article, but it might possibly be useful for building my invincible death ray and conquering the world expanding some other article, though I'll defer to experts about where this might belong. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, heavy cleanup This text is not original research: it is based on published papers, and published by researches from a no-bullshit highly respected institution. The only problem is its "single-sourcedness". The proper approach would be to contact the author and requiest third-party references, in other words Don't bite a newcomer. - Altenmann >t 20:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Also, opinions of experts are to be requested. A quick google search reveals that various permutations of the title are quite known. So the issue is to relate this uncategorized paper within proper context. - Altenmann >t 20:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. I added the corresponding tags to the article.- Altenmann >t 20:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment While the paper references other papers, the source from which the material is copied indicates that the work is still in progress.  A search of Google scholar shows no publication of the findings in this research by these researchers.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Due to this edit summary, it appears to be original research.  Dog  poster  23:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Keep, Heavy Cleanup- I guess it seems good enough if it is clened up very heavily.  Dog  poster  19:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note this is NOT original research The article simply includes OR. If it includes OR delete the OR, but don't waste everyone's time and delete an article on an encyclopedic topic. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research / promotional editing, per Dogposter. Not biting newbies is not a reason to delete articles; we should be friendly to them but not at the expense of our policies and guidelines.  Them  From  Space  23:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note this is NOT original research The article simply includes OR. If it includes OR delete the OR, but don't waste everyone's time and delete an article on an encyclopedic topic. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, heavy cleanup - this appears to be a lot of synthesis, but I think it can be fixed. It is beyond me. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep one of them It is a materials characterization technique and there is no doubt an article on the topic belongs in wikipedia. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This article has not been proposed for deletion because the topic of SPEELS is not worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia, but because this particular article appears to be a copy of material posted here which is a new line of research into new applications of SPEELS. The new applications described in this research have not yet been published in any journal, as verified by a Google scholar search. The article has been modified sufficiently to avoid a copyvio tag, but only just. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I edited everything left in the article except for the few sentences in the last part. If you are accusing me of plagiarizing something, then remove anything I've plagiarized. I used reputable sources for the part I rewrote. I you are accusing me of OR, then remove the original research I've added. It's time to cut the crap out. Instead of just deleting the OR, you read the article's edit history once, have not revisited it sense, and have no idea about it's content. Remove my OR and my copyvios and report me to the authorities and be done with the accusations. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This article was nominated based on its content at the time of its nomination. At that time,  had not yet touched the article, so no accusations are made against this user.  My comment above was an explanation of why I nominated the article in the first place, and not a comment on any contributions that have been made since the article was nominated.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're still voting to delete the article as it now stands. That makes your comment about the current state of the article. How it was does not matter. The discussion is about how it is. Since you're not withdrawing your accusations that it contains OR, and I've mostly rewritten the article, you are accusing me of OR and plagiarism in the rewrite. To hell with the article and wikipedia and this talk for talk's sake rather than writing a good encyclepedia. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not voting for anything at the moment. My nomination was made; the article was edited.  If the community agrees that the edits improve the article, so be it.  My further silence on the matter cannot construed as a an accusation against any editor who modified the article since I nominated it; it can only be construed as allowing the community to make its judgment.  Having nominated the article, I leave it to the rest of the community to decide its fate.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you just want to waste other editors' time. There's no reason whatsoever for deleting this article. Do a google search for once, put the term in quotes, and see how many hits you get. It's a well-known materials characterization technique. For some reason, you've nominated a legitimate topic for deletion, and you're forcing the AfD to its end, in spite of the fact that your reason for deletion no longer exists and was a criterion for fixing in the first place. You want to hold the audience captive rather than just closing this ridiculous AfD. This is why experts leave: too much bs to deal with. Can I write articles? No, I'm forced to attend to ridiculous crap like this. Fine, delete the article. I'm not editing this encyclopedia anymore and playing games where editors with no knowledge in an area force editors with knowledge in an area to defend perfectly legitimate subjects against deletion simply because the deletionist wants a big audience.
 * --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've said this before and I'll reiterate it: I nominated this article for deletion not because the topic is not noteworthy but because the original article claimed new findings regarding the technique that had not yet been previously published. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for deletion, not a single one of which is the article contains original research. If the article IS OR in its entirety, then go ahead, but this article is NOT, and you continue to support its deletion with all OR removed. Therefore, you're either accusing me of OR or playing a game with the time of wikipedia editors. Your choice, and it's not ad hominem if it's true.

For some reason, you've nominated a legitimate topic for deletion, and you're forcing the AfD to its end, in spite of the fact that your reason for deletion no longer exists and was a criterion for fixing that part of the artice rather than deletion in the first place.


 * Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria
 * Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
 * Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
 * Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)
 * Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
 * Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
 * Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
 * Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
 * Redundant or otherwise useless templates
 * Categories representing overcategorization
 * Images that are unused, obsolete, or violate fair-use policy
 * Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace.
 * Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

So, forget wikipedia and editing articles, when editors' time is wasted by game players who are only interested in using other editors' and the community's time rather than creating a decent encyclopedia. And stay off my user page, I'm done with you and wikipedia. That's enough bs.

--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * has claimed that I am wasting the community's time with the continuance of this AfD. The fact is that the original article did contain original research.  This user claims that his edits have turned the article into something legitimate, and that my refusal to acquiesce is tantamount to an accusation against him.  This is untrue.  My nomination was based on the original article, which even to my unlearned eye was OR.  Whether the current version is an improvement or not is beyond my power to tell as I am not expert in this field.  That is why I have allowed the AfD to continue; to allow those members of the community who are knowledgeable in this area to have their say in the matter.  This it the whole point of an AfD discussion anyway, is it not?  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have removed a large amount of information from the article that violated Wikipedia's copyright policy. I'd appreciate if someone could clean up what's left.  The left orium  15:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just deleted the rest of that section. The lead section is not a copyvio, I wrote most of it. I haven't checked the second part. If the copy vio problem is in the section you edited, just removing it is safer. The part about the initial experiment has to be developed properly. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, everything seems good now.  The left orium  18:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking the rest. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Gasp, this looks like an actual encyclopedic topic on Wikipedia, I cannot believe my eyes.  JBsupreme (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Appears to be a valid encyclopdic topic. Don't see any valid reason to delete, at least as the article stands now. Rlendog (talk) 21:24, 15 December 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.