Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microstructurally Stable Copper and 10% Atomic Tantalum Nanocrystalline Alloy

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. Bit of a mess here, but it seems that the topic doesn't meet GNG anyways. I moved it to draft first before deleting because I wasn't thinking straight, just in case anyone's wondering what happened. ansh 666 07:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Microstructurally Stable Copper and 10% Atomic Tantalum Nanocrystalline Alloy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe this article meets WP:GNG, as it is a highly-specific topic. This could be covered more broadly in an article on nanocrystalline copper alloys or nanocrystalline alloys. Additionally, this one particular alloy appears to have been developed by K. Darling, and many of the subsequent sources are also by him, and "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Additionally, the Weertman source does not appear to refer to this specific alloy. Enwebb (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Move back to draft space. This is a bit mystifying; looking at the history, it looks like this was a declined draft, and I'm not following from the logs how it ended up in mainspace. All of the sources are first-party. The creator, User:Annafarrell 2, has created a few similar articles. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was a declined draft that was merged into this article. For some reason this only shows in the logs of the source article, not the target, and there is no indication what the source was. Here is the log entry. Brad v 22:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: can you explain why you merged this into mainspace? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why merging was required because the only contributor to the draft also created this article and therefore attribution was fine, but I assume it was merged into mainspace because that's where the article was created, and then the original draft was history merged. Natureium (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Sorry for the delay (just got off work), that is why the history was merged (cc Natureium). I just forgot to move it back to the draft namespace after the merge. I am still open to doing that, only issue is that this is now nominated. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone thank you for your input- I am the author of this piece and hopefully can clear up some of the concerns. Initially I tried to publish this post with the title of purely "Microstructurally Stable Nanocrystalline Alloys" with the hopes that as more research develops covering these impressive molecules it can add on. However, as I have only published a few pieces it underwent review and the criticism was that the title was too generic. So the draft was indeed deleted. It was recommended to me by my community of Wikipedia writers that the article be titled more specifically with the components and that it could perhaps be linked to later if desired. Source one was the initial publication as naturally that was what I was writing on. Sources 2 and 3 however are not written by those involved in the research. Source 2 is a piece written by Bob Yirka for Phys.org (a journal with an impact factor of over 8) who was not one of the scientists participating in the topic concerned. He has no affiliation with the U.S. Army so far as I can tell. Source 3 is written by Julie Weertman (also not involved in the research) from Northwestern. This source is more specifically about creep resistance and nanocrystals generally. Thank you very much for your comments! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annafarrell 2 (talk • contribs) 22:22, July 24, 2018 (UTC)

Comment Additionally, it should be noted that the creator has a paid COI, as acknowledged on their user page, regarding this topic. Enwebb (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When I came across this earlier today I wasn't sure what to do with it. It didn't qualify for moving to draftspace, clearly needs a new title ("Microstructurally stable copper-tantalum nanocrystalline alloy" was suggested by Bradv), wasn't quite notable based on the sources, but wasn't terrible. I think the best thing for this is for the creator to develop it into a broader article that includes other similar materials that can be a topic that satisfies notability criteria. Natureium (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~ back to the broader topic. I agree with the nominator that this alloy on its own probably doesn't pass WP:GNG, but the broader topic Draft:Microstructurally stable nanocrystalline alloy has a decent shot at becoming an article. Either way, this probably should not be deleted at this juncture. Brad v 03:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the update below, a new article Microstructurally stable nanocrystalline alloys has been created, so this should now be deleted. Brad v 20:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again: I have noted your comments and made a new page that is hopefully broader and more accommodating for other users' contributions. I am happy to discuss further the quality and variety of my sources- if you notice all cited sources, except the primary publication, in this piece have no affiliation with the army, are not by the primary researchers, and are reporting from institutions with high standards and publications with credible impact factors. I was able to find other nanocrystalline alloys and wrote down a line or two of the results claimed by the researchers as a starting point for the rest of the community. I suppose I will leave this here to see which page people prefer to preserve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstructurally_stable_nanocrystalline_alloys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annafarrell 2 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I realize you're just trying to be helpful, and probably aren't familiar with all of our policies, but this was not a good idea. What you've got there is a WP:FORK. The best thing would be to delete Microstructurally stable nanocrystalline alloys, and continue the conversation here about what should be done with Microstructurally Stable Copper and 10% Atomic Tantalum Nanocrystalline Alloy. You can propose that you'll re-write the text to cover a broader topic, and/or move it to a different title. And then people can discuss that and decide if that's the right thing. But, creating a fork in the middle of a discussion, just leads to confusion. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: There's no reason to stop editing just because of an AfD. To be completely fair, Annafarrell 2 has received a lot of conflicting advice, and this particular AfD is a comedy of errors. This edit actually clears things up — the article that this AfD is about can be closed as delete or redirect, and the new article can be reviewed separately. Brad v 20:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there's no reason to stop editing. My apologies if I gave that impression. What I was objecting to was the forking of the article. People edit articles that are the subject of AfDs all the time. But, yeah, I agree this AfD is silly. Based on what User:TheSandDoctor said above, it's only by accident that this is even in mainspace at all. We should just move it back to draft space, then it can be worked on, edited, renamed, etc, etc, for however long it takes. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, would redirecting this (with some words added) to Nanocrystalline material be an appropriate course (ditto Microstructurally stable nanocrystalline alloys)? Coolabahapple (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2018 (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.