Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory, Design and Calibration of a BF3 Tube Neutron Detector

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. Sandstein 17:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theory, Design and Calibration of a BF3 Tube Neutron Detector

This article appears to be a copyright violation, copied and pasted from an online textbook. Evidence:

The article was not significantly altered or developed after the original posting yet it is highly detailed. So it must have been written some time previously
The article was posted all at once and as unformatted text (no bold, no superscripts etc), so it must come from some outside source and wasn't written with the Wikipedia editor
The article contains line breaks and indents that are consistent with it having been copied and pasted from a previously formatted page such as a web page or PDF, and inconsistent with having been written in WP
Uploaded images were not copyright-cleared. The author was made aware of this and was warned for removing tags, but didn't address the issue
The article reads like an entry from a textbook andy 13:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless someone can find evidence of a copyvio. This doesn't appear to be either OR or a how-to but a straightforward description of an existing technical process. I agree it needs sources, and while usually I'd try to dig them out myself I don't know enough on atomic engineering to be sure I'm citing correctly. None of the reasons given in the nom are convincing. Plenty of people (including me) will compose longer articles in a word-processor rather than in the small Wikipedia editor window. Wherever it was written, the fact that it's unformatted certainly isn't a reason for deletion; plenty of newer editors aren't familiar with Wikipedia's (non-standard) text formatting; likewise, while yes the line breaks are consistent with someone writing for another source, they're also consistent with someone writing who just isn't familiar with Mediawiki software. Googling a bunch of random phrases from the text doesn't bring up any matches on any of them, so it seems unlikely to have been copied from a website. Finally, "reads like a textbook" is a criticism of tone, not grounds for deletion — iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely inappropriate to have a highly detailed description of how to build a lab instrument with no references whatsoever, and no demonstration that the doodad is important enough to be in an encyclopedia. If not a copyvio, then it is clearly original research, and it is full of undefined tech terms like "PuBe." Also even if it is not a hoax or a copyright violation, Wikipedia is not a big "How To" manual. Fails WP:N, WP:A and WP:NOR. Edison 16:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Transwiki - If it is not a copyright violation, move it to Wikibooks as a stub. --R e m i 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a how-to and not an encyclopedia article. This might be somebody's paper which would explain why it smells sontrgly of copyvio. -- Whpq 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - As-is this article fails WP:ATT. WP:N is hard to discern since I don't have enough information to obtain a context for it. Much depends on whether "BF3" is a standard type of neutron detector or someone's specific brand. An option is to redirect this to neutron detection. --EMS | Talk 19:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- BF3 is a particular type of neutron detector (made of Boron Trifluoride, or BF₃) rather than a brand. Google the phrase and you find a fair few people making & referring to them, so I think it does pass muster as a valid (if specialised) description of a scientific instrument & the process it's used for, rather than a how-to. Would probably make sense to redirect to BF3 tube neutron detector, or even just BF3 tube — iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the info. I will then maintain my "weak delete" due to lack of attribution, no (current) evidence of notability, and this being an abandonned article (as its creator has done nothing to reinsert the figures or address the AfD). However, with some cleanup and citations this could be turned into a keepable article. --EMS | Talk 15:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As previously stated I don't know enough particle physics to do it myself with any confidence, but would it make more sense to clean up & merge this into a section of Neutron detection, at least for the moment, since no other detection method has its own page at present? It would need serious cleanup, as Neutron detection is a very well written & formatted page at present and TD&COABF3TND is currently a mess — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been Googling BF3 tube neutron detectors, as you do, and there are a lot of sites detailing various ways to make them and several commercial sellers. This article is sketchy and simplistic (e.g. compare it with this description or this one). I don't see that we'd be doing the world a favour by giving it a section of Neutron detection. andy 17:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have to agree with Andy on this. That there are no other articles on neutron detectors present is not a good sign, and dumping this into the neutron detection article will only warp it unless other detectors are discussed or if this topic should happen to be a good prototypical example of such a detector.
    Since none of us know all that much about this business, I have posted a notice of this AfD on talk:neutron detection. Hopefully that will enable us to obtain better guidance here. --EMS | Talk 19:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've posted a similar request at WikiProject Physics - I think this AfD itself now warrants an {{expert}} tag — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Jtrainor 20:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it is, it's certainly not a hoax - the issue is whether it warrants its own page, not whether it exists — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:32, 3 May 2007 (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.