Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stabilizing ferroelectric materials


 * 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   Merge and redirect (non-admin closure) ...... Dendodge  .. Talk Contribs 15:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Stabilizing ferroelectric materials

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

When you take out the information about Ferroelectric RAM, all that's left is a good but unremarkable scientific paper and its press releases. I propose deletion on notability grounds. (Note: I just now nominated the talk page instead of the article, by accident. Sorry about my confusion.) Steve (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   — Cliff smith  talk  00:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The topic is definitely noteworthy as working around the issue of depolarization when ferroelectrics are deposited on semiconductors for memory applications is somewhat of a holy grail in the field. However, the current state of the article is severely limited. There is a wide variety of literature, both experimental and theoretical, on this issue. If the problem of sourcing to a single paper discussing only a minute aspect of the field is not fixed, it should be redirected to ferroelectricity in the meantime. --Polaron | Talk 01:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment--please specify some examples of this wide variety of literature? -- S Marshall  Talk / Cont  10:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See this and this for starters. I'll check later to see if there are books and review papers on the subject when I get to work. --Polaron | Talk 13:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect—for now, anyway. It seems like the most practical application of this would be for Ferroelectric RAM, so until this topic is expanded, the information can go there.  What I don't understand is if the paper cited in this article was actually published in a peer-reviewed journal.  If not, then the whole thing looks like WP:OR.  The redirect will preserve the name and history, such that should the article be expanded to the point where inclusion in Ferroelectric RAM is no longer appropriate, it can be forked off again.  Livitup (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The paper was indeed published (J.E. Spanier et al., "Ferroelectric phase transition in individual single-crystalline BaTiO3 nanowires", Nano Letters 6, 735-739 (2006)) but it is only one small aspect of the entire field of depolarization phenomena in ferroelectric materials, which include size effects, electrode effects, screening, and charge leakage through defects. It is actually one of the better papers in the field (among the hundreds of published journal articles). The paper, however, is extremely limited in scope and probably merits a sentence in a more comprehensive article. Nanowires are not even the current preferred architecture for FeRAM and FeFETs. --Polaron | Talk 15:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that a merge and redirect to FeRAM is sensible. --Steve (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to FeRAM. That article currently heavily favors the engineering over the physics. This and related papers would be a great boon. No objections to recreation if we need a spin-out or to cover material not relevant to FeRAM. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus? Seems to me like there's a consensus for merge and redirect. I even already went ahead and put the relevant information onto FeRAM. Here's the edit in which I did so. If I left anything out, please add it. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbyrnes321 (talk • contribs) 2008-08-14T22:23:04


 * 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.