Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ice-nine fusion

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 delete. ignoring single-purpose accounts Secret ^account 20:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ice-nine fusion[edit]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: serious vote stacking concerns here, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oldnoah. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the creator's additions to the Ice-nine article were repeatedly reverted, he added them to a new article Ice-nine fusion claiming supposed consensus at the talk page. Topic is sufficiently covered by strangelet. Delete; merge with strangelet at best. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not about the fictional Ice nine from Kurt Vonnegut's Player Piano, nor about the strangelet in general, but about a a physicist's speculation (in Scientific American) as to how strangelet theory would permit the creation of something analogous to "Ice nine". It probably doesn't belong in either article, but it can be referred to (with a link) in both articles. Mandsford (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ This is a pedagogical analogy/allusion---I hesitate to call it even a neologism---for Strangelet#Danger of strangelets: catalyzed conversion to strange matter. It's exactly the same phenomenon, and it's better explained in that article than in this one. The "ice-nine" thing is certainly not a term of art in the community. Add a link to Wilczek's SciAm article to strangelet and maybe mention that he called it ice-nine fusion, but don't try to salvage this content. I recommend keeping the redirect just in case somone stumbles across the SciAm article first, and uses that term to search. Bm gub (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN neologism. I can't even find Google evidence for "ice-nine fusion" or "ice-9 fusion" being alternate names for strangelet catastrophes. There are zero non-WP google hits for those phrases. It's very nice that someone is fond of the analogy, and it's not a bad analogy, but it's not WP-worthy. At best it could (someday) become an alternative name for strangelet disasters, in which case it would be worth a redirect. But it isn't yet.Bm gub (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was created at the suggestion of "Wyatt Riot", who continuously monitors the "ice-nine" page. Another party [NOT myself] kept editing that page to add material regarding non-fiction usage of the term "ice-nine" along the lines suggested by Frank Wilczek in his widely published Letter to SciAm. Wyatt Riot kept deleting/reverting that other party, stating quite clearly that he wanted to keep the page as relating directly to the fictional usage of the term as in Vonnegut's novel only. Wyatt Riot then suggested to that other party that he should add a disambiguation if he wanted to post material that was non-fictional usage of the "ice-9" term. I read through those posts, and took up Wyatt Riot's suggestion, and created the "ice-nine fusion" page, so as to distinguish it from "ice-9" freezing of water. The term "ice-nine" has in fact been adapted from the sci-fi literature [Vonnegut's novel] to now apply to most any kind of runaway chain reaction that converts something into more of itself. Wyatt Riot does not have a monopoly on the term, or copyright to the term. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate to have a separate page for ice-nine fusion, and if anyone wants to set up a page for some other type of ice-nine reaction other than fusion, they too should be free to do so. Oldnoah (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah[reply]
- Comment: I advised User:Homocion (or anyone, rather) to create an article like this if there were sufficient references to prove its notability and after reading various policy pages on Wikipedia. (I believe the first criteria was met, not the second.) But that doesn't make this page exempt from deletion for any number of reasons. Anyone can create a page, after all, but if it doesn't fall within Wikipedia guidelines or if the community decides that it should be deleted or changed, then that's going to happen. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Ice-nine" has entered the language as a term for disasterous conversion scenarios as witnessed by Nobel laureate Frank Wilczec's letter to the editor of Scientific American in 1999 that used the term to describe the scenario that was the subject of my March 2000 Web page "The Strange Matter of Planetary Destruction". RickWagnerPhD (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC) : Note: This comment was posted in the discussion section and copied here by me. Oldnoah (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah[reply]
delete This is ridiculous we already got enough information about dangers of negative strangelets on the main strangelet article. Not to mention it maybe a confusion bwteen this article and Ice-nine article. Also in my opinion the term "Ice-9 fusion should be changed to "catalyzed conversion" When talking about this doomsday scenario. Not everyone watches sci-fi shows :) 116.240.192.120 (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ice-9 is a physical process that must be defined in a good encyclopedia. Wyatt and me had agreed to disambiguate the term from ice-9 and make an article apart. As i see another wikipedians have done the job i suggest to KEEP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.210.93 (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bm gub, only exists on wikipedia per this google search, and can find nothing else in a wider search. Add a line at most to Strangelets. ^Khukri 12:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This page provides far more information and citation than the "strangelet" page. Deletion would remove valid information. Oldnoah (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah[reply]
  - "contains valid information" is not grounds for keeping an article; if I put two paragraphs of modern linguistic scholarship into an article on Discourse Analysis of the "Proto-Klingon" Invented By Bobby, Age 15, the article is still deletable. In any case, the article does not quite contain more information; it contains the same information in a lengthier essay-like style. Some of this information is wrong (the AGS made many particles with strangeness > 1, whereas the article asserts that it made only lambdas) and the rest of it is overkill for an encyclopedia article. Bm gub (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have corrected the statement about the AGS making only Lambda's with one strange quark to indicate that other particles are made with a few strange quarks. Isn't it better to correct, than to simply delete? I've gone through numerous other articles [not related to strangelets per se, but to nuclear physics] and cleaned up a lot of the language. Should I instead be deleting the articles because I find a mistake? Gee, I'll bet that would be a basis to delete half of Wikipedia, if one want's to nit-pic every technical mistake. I believe it's best to have all of the information in one single article; the other pages aren't about ice-nine fusion per se, but about other topics that indirectly relate to ice-nine fusion; so it should not be deleted.
Delete As several editors have stated, the correct parts of this article are just a repetition (with exactly the same references) of the relevant parts of the strangelet article. Moreover, the term "ice-9 fusion" has not been used anywhere in the reputable physics literature, so it is not clear why this article is needed. Dark Formal (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Having corrected the misstatement about only Lambdas being created at the AGS, I believe the rest of the article is now correct. While some of the references are the same as under "strangelets", there are many more references here to relevant information about ice-nine fusion not contained in the "strangelet" article. Deletion eliminates viable, valuable information. The term "ice-nine" fusion is a disambiguation term. I'm open to other suggestions, but this is the best term for the subject.
Delete - This is exactly the sort of physics original research that WP:OR warns against. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is not original research. It is well-referenced and does not interject personal point of view, or original thought. It is well established that there have been dozens to possibly a hundred or more scientific searches for strangelets. It is well established that some theories of strangelets show a runaway fusion potential. These theories and experiments have been well documented in the scientific literature. If you need more citations, then show the areas where you need more citations. Don't just delete; use the citation link. Those seeking to delete the article are the same parties who were engaged in heavy editing/deletion of relevant material in the "strangelet" page, attempting to impose a biased view of strangelet research and concerns within the science community. We need balance. Oldnoah (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah[reply]
  - No one is proposing to delete strangelets, which is a good article. No one is proposing to delete runaway conversion scenarios, on which there is a good article subsection. No one is proposing to remove a balanced amount of references from those articles. We are proposing to delete this extra article on "ice-nine fusion", a neologism. Please provide documentation that "ice-nine fusion" is a term (not just an analogy) actually used by someone. Bm gub (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (The above arguments convinced me.) Wyatt Riot (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "The following is policy on the English Wikipedia, and according to Jimbo Wales, it "always has been". Ignore all rules was Wikipedia's first rule to consider. Shortcuts:WP:IARWP:IGNORE If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." from neologisms links posted by Wyatt Riot. In other words, they are not RULES, but guidelines. Having a single page that describes ice-nine fusion, when the other pages [Large Hadron Collider, Strangelet, Quarks, etc.] that touch on the subject would definitely improve Wikipedia, and thus the page should remain. It's not like its an eyesore, or physically cumbersome. It provides a more in-depth definition of what ice-nine fusion is, which is a subject of intense importance to many people. If persons don't want to read it, they certainly don't have to. Why is there this intense pressure to delete information about strangelet fusion not available on the other pages? see: Wikipedia:common sense and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules Oldnoah (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is highly disputed in the wikipedia community and there is no such thing as common sense in physics. 58.178.154.82 (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe there have been objections that too much material is being added to the strangelet page pertaining to ice nine fusion. For this reason I believe this new page is needed. Transcept (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Transcept— Transcept (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Deserves a mention somewhere that Wilczek used this term to describe something to do with strangelets, but the subject is not sufficiently notable for its own article. --Closedmouth (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.