Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unruh temperature


 * 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. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Unruh temperature

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

"This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2009)" Tag has been in place since May 2009 RedBlue82  talk  22:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Using the Google scholar search link provided above, there are plenty of reliable sources showing that this is a legitimate and notable formula. The article needs an expert, and someone with access to the journal articles is all. Also see WP:BEFORE. First Light (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. The nominator should have done some research first. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep, obviously. See WP:BEFORE, where it says "When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." The nominator obviously didn't do that.  This is not a valid deletion proposal.  False vacuum (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Unruh effect. I don't see how it can be expanded and it will only be a stub. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  13:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I could expand it quite a bit. A nice leisurely derivation of the equation is the obvious thing.  Not making any promises I'll get to it, but somebody could.  False vacuum (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: I have removed the only excuse for this charade, by means of adding two references to the article. I wanted to wait till after the AfD was dismissed, but I couldn't stand it.  Please do not attempt to use this method to force me to work on other articles; I'm not very reliable.  False vacuum (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Unruh effect. Not a good AfD per above. --Kkmurray (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. If merging is going to be seriously considered, I hope there's a separate proposal and discussion, after this AfD is closed. "Merge" should not be the outcome of a frivolous deletion proposal, and there's a detailed discussion to be had that's probably not going to happen here.  False vacuum (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just found out&mdash;to my utter astonishment&mdash;that Unruh temperature receives an average of 271 page views a day.  False vacuum (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Those data seem to be incorrect . There may be a spike do this review. In any case, it is irrelevant to the discussion of notability / whether it should have a separate article. Danski14(talk) 17:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; since I don't know where the information in the page I linked to comes from, and since it would be reasonable to expect a spike, I agree that seems plausible. For those who don't have time to follow Danski14's link above, it gives pageview statistics per month, and reports that the article being discussed has been viewed around 200 times in each of the last several months except July, for which it reports zero.  I have no idea how reliable it is, but that particular number is unlikely to be correct if the others are.  Anyway, I agree the statistics are not directly relevant to whether the U.t. should have its own article, but I would contend that they are relevant to the question of notability&mdash;though it seems a bit odd that notability would even be mentioned at this point.  I don't see anyone suggesting the subject isn't notable, not even the original nominator.  False vacuum (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep if improved, but do not delete. It is a pretty thin and weak article. Needs more solid text and discussion. Give the supporters 4 weeks to improve, else merge it. It does not deserve to be standalone, unless gets improved. But no point in deleting it. History2007 (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Unruh effect, which would more aptly be named Unruh effect. (Personally I'd present the equation in the form kT = ..., with a dimension of energy, as is done at Bill Unruh.) In any case, should obviously not be simply deleted. --Lambiam 21:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Leaving it as is just might motivate me to study and write up that derivation.  Do people think an article that does an accessible derivation is a bad idea?  I notice that Hawking temperature redirects to Hawking radiation; maybe I should throw in with the mergeists, but Wikipedia is developing a bit of a status quo bias.  False vacuum (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Question. How long do these things usually last?  There seems to be a unanimous consensus for not deleting the article, in addition to the fact that the rationale for the deletion proposal no longer exists.  We can discuss expanding vs. merging it separately. (Even if I decided to merge it, I couldn't just unilaterally do it now, right?) Is somebody supposed to ask an admin to close the discussion?  Or shall I nominate it for deletion? (Joke.) False vacuum (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Deletion debates usually last a week, except for cases where deletion is non-debatable and cases where there is no consensus, or more input is needed. Merging, instead of deleting is always an option that can be discussed in such debates. Danski14(talk) 17:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Unruh effect, per above. The effect is better covered on that article, and repeats the same equation. Merge the new references, of course. Danski14(talk) 17:36, 8 September 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.