Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plasma fusion preface

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. Primefac (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma fusion preface[edit]

[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)

This does not appear to be a viable article. It is just a collection of notes on plasma physics and other topics related to plasma fusion. Wikipedia is not the right venue for this content, at least not in this form. Srleffler (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a single trace of term "Plasma fusion preface" in Google Scholar or Books. A private collection of notes with no evidence or indication of relevance and importance. And essentially unsourced. - DVdm (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't look like an encyclopedia article, more an essay or lecture notes. Perhaps a transwiki to Wikibooks or Wikiversity could be considered as an alternative to deletion? — Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've read through it again yesterday and decided that as it stands, the article is likely only to be of private interest, and is simply using Wikipedia as storage. If the article creator wants to turn it into a encyclopedia article or textbook, they can always request a copy be emailed to them.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not true, my intension was never to use Wikipedia as storage, my intension was to share what I have learned and spread that knowledge to perhaps make people understand better. I have other forums for storage. Knoppson (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I do not understand is that if you are so disappointed in my article, why not change it yourselves? I like it as it is so I don't really want to change it but I do recognize now that I scroll trough it that it isn't that professionally written. But what did you expect from a passionate Swede :) Knoppson (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If we thought this could fit within our scope as an article, we would work to improve it. The issue is not whether it is professionally written, it's that the type of material and its organization into an article is not suitable for Wikipedia. We publish encyclopedia articles, not collections of notes. Each article needs to have a defined topic, and it needs to present that topic in an organized way. "Plasma fusion preface" is not a topic.

We already have articles on plasma physics, fusion, etc. A lot of this material would probably be better if it were incorporated into those existing articles, rather than just collecting it all in one page with no real organization. I also agree with the suggestion above that one of the other Wikis might be a better site to host a collection of notes, although I'm not familiar enough with them to say which one would be appropriate.--Srleffler (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a host for miscellaneous notes, passionately written or otherwise. Save your notes, flesh them out and post them somewhere else as a "Background to plasma fusion" if you like. XOR'easter (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for clear reasons above. Not up to standard expected for Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for the same reason as XOR'easter. --Steve (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have now tranferred the article to Wikibooks where I hope it fits better with the rules. Actually you have helped me realize what to do with this article. The article will be developed into a book but I have lots of more studies to do. In time the developing will almost only consist of more notes and material. Before DVdm's little talk with me I did not fully understand what Wikipedia is about, now I know and I can tell you this that I will never try to write an article on Wikipedia again, the reason is that i really live for original research, that is what makes my writing exciting. Knoppson (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Knoppson: that is good to hear, but it you ever stumble upon research of the non-or-much-less-original kind, by all means feel free to contribute here! Good luck

- DVdm (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Knoppson (talk) 16:26, 18 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.