Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vector soliton


 * 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. Article was rewritten to address concerns, no longer any reason to delete. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Vector soliton

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

Blatant advertising, and likely copyright infringement (although has been declined as blatant by an admin). Also a non notable solution without regard to promotional factor. Shadowjams (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Shadowjams, are we looking at the same article? Where is the spam? But dleteion as original research seems fully appropriate. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note You're right, probably not advertising (simply because it's completely unclear for what this would be advertising for). That's my mistake. However I flagged the article initially because it felt like it was copy-pasted, and the google search was pretty flagrant, although not explicit on that point.
 * Addition This is why I flagged it initially. The second "sentence" comes up with a direct translation hit via google. Search "optical soliton can be classified as two groups:temporal soliton and spatial". Typo and all, that hit is pretty interesting. Shadowjams (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I just saw a film titled with "Changeling," Don't try to be acting like the silly Captain J.J. Jones! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismemeisme (talk • contribs) 10:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Question Shadowjams, I followed your suggestion and google the sentence of "optical soliton can be classified as two groups:temporal soliton and spatial". Nothing wrong was found. What does the "pretty interesting" mean? ismemeisme (talk)


 * Answer I may have been mistaken about which line I found elsewhere, however I was not mistaken about some of these extended sentences being very closely related to other works. After a quick search, I find the following two
 * The line "which is now known as a high-order phase- locked vector soliton in SMFs." is found at.
 * The sentence that begins "Vector solutions can be spatial or temporal..." is also found in similar form at (Compare "Vector solutions can be spatial or temporal and formed by two orthogonally polarized components of a single optical field or two fields of different frequencies but the same polarization." to "The vector soliton solutions of this model can be spatial or temporal and .... Here u1 z, x and u2 z , x are two orthogonally polarized components of a .... of two incoherent optical beams having the same wavelength and polarization in .... of each colliding soliton with the same polarization and background field.").
 * My concern initially was that the tone of the article, and the way citations were done, and other little factors, suggested a lot of copy pasting into the article. My initial searches confirmed some hits. Perhaps some of these phrases are drawn from the field and you would expect to find elsewhere, but these are issues that need to be addressed because I believe they suggest underlying copyright issues. Shadowjams (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 *  Delete . I saw this minutes after it was listed, and was not sure if I should speedy list it as nonsense. Looking back, it is. Delete as is, or rewrite if the subject matter is valid Keep as it is now rewritten.--Dmol (talk) 09:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable phenomenon. However, a thorough rewrite of the article is required. Salih  ( talk ) 10:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   —  Salih  ( talk ) 10:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note I agree about the rewrite, but please specify how it is notable. This article is in dire need of WP:RS, and right now it is an incomprehensible conglomeration of copied material and original material. That needs to be cleared out. If this topic is notable, obviously, I have no opposition to it sticking around, but this thing needs to be cleaned up first, and before this Afd is closed. I'll try to help out (time permitting) but the sources would help immensely. Shadowjams (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A Google search returns plenty of sources; for example,, , . Salih  ( talk ) 14:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement the concept is notable. Cleanup and copyright issues remain. Shadowjams (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Dear Shadowjams and RHaworth:
 * I am the person who creates this website about vector soliton.


 * Because vector solitons are rather are ubiquitous and generic in the entire field of nonlinear systems, it should be very interesting to edit this concept in this famous website: wiki. However, as I am only a foreign student with poor English, this website is not well prepared. However, I promise that I would improve this website as best as I can. I am not intending to advise something in this website but just want to introduce the basic concept of wiki. So due to my limited knowledge on vector solitons, I could only dare to introduce our works on vector solitons. But I hope other researchers on vector solitons would try to improve this and make more people know about what vector solitons are. Please give me more time on improving this and I would try to clarify something inappropriate. Wish you could reconsider after a second thought as i have delete and add something alread.


 * Best regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vectorsoliton (talk • contribs) 11:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have simply nominated the article, and at many times nominators change their minds. You should address your appeal to the as of yet unknown administrator who will eventually close the discussion. The decision is not, nor has been, up to me. Shadowjams (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I endorse the remark above: "this thing needs to be cleaned up first, and before this Afd is closed." But not to worry, if it does get deleted, you can always come back with an improved version to DRV. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * PS:I have rewrote the articles and hope you could give me another chance!
 * Best regards, Vectorsoliton (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC) vectorsoliton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vectorsoliton (talk • contribs) 13:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. A google search shows this is clearly a notable topic with several academic journal articles available. I see no reason to believe any problems with the article cannot practically be fixed by editing, and WP:DELETION therefore requires the article to be kept to allow that editing to take place. JulesH (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note Just to address a specific point, nowhere in WP:Deletion does is there a policy that requires the article be kept. In fact, WP Policy explicitly states the contrary at WP:NOTCLEANUP. I note that it doesn't necessarily support deletion, it just notes that later improvement is not itself an argument for or against deletion. Certainly if the topic is notable it'd be nice to have an article, but the content has to be comprehensible and free of any copyright issues. That's the point of this debate, of course. Shadowjams (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with JulesH.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * [Keep].Thanks for your discussion and paying attention to this notable concept. Vector solitons are often available in many top journals such as Phyiscal review letters,nature and Science.I have added some inline referrences in order to improve this articleVectorsoliton (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. Well referenced and is used in the literature . -Atmoz (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note I have added details on some of the possible copyright issues earlier in the thread, in response to ismemeisme's comments. Shadowjams (talk) 05:35, 14 February 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.