Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solid-state ionics

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. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solid-state ionics[edit]

the article subject is virtually the same as fast ion conductor which is a more substantial article. Solid-state ionics appears to only exist for the purpose of plugging The Asian Society for Solid State Ionics. I would have no problem with a properly referenced article on this society, but doing it by a back-door fork is not good. SpinningSpark 22:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. If deleted, its entry should also be deleted on the solid state dab page. SpinningSpark 22:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep There are tens of thousands of scholarly sources for this and the nomination seems to be arguing for a merger or rewrite. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and consider a merge,(see below) The term is in fact used generally. Cf. Solid State Ionics, published by Elsevier, and having nothing whatever to do with the Asian Society for SSI. [1], andthe 300 or so books in WorldCat with that phrase [2] I am not sure whether there is an actual distinction between this term and "fast ion conductors". If they are true synonyms, since WorldCat shows 131 books with the title Fast ion conductors [3] , I am not sure which of the two is the more standard term. DGG (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I am not disputing that solid-state ionics is a recognised and widely used term. Solid-state ionics is the study of solid-state ionic conductors for which another term is fast ion conductor for which we already have an article. Besides the mention of the Asian Society for Solid State Ionics there is nothing in this article that is not already covered in much more detail in the existing article. I would not be in favour of merging in the material on the Asian Society without 3rd party references, ie not just the self-references there at present. So I guess I am proposing a redirect, but I did not want to do it unilaterally, hence the AfD. SpinningSpark 21:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have I think figured out the nature of the entry: The society holds a variety of local conferences, and publishes their proceedings in a series of books with a title or subtitle: Solid State Ionics, for example ,[4] . I have checked a number of these books, and essentially none of them are held by more than a few US/UK libraries. The present articles is very similar to their usual blurb for such a book, though I have not found the specific one. the society is unimportant; the conferences are unimportant. The correct course is to redirect the term as a synonym, if it is an exact synonym. the material on the society should not be merged. DGG (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect If the nominator isn't contesting the subject exists, then either merging the two or redirecting one is a better solution based on the commonality of the phrase. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep--even the nominator no longer supports this Neither merge nor redirect. It's a field, not a material, and should be the one with the bigger article. It's like saying merge chemistry to oxygen. Just because the article isn't up to snuff on a perfectly valid topic (huge topic), and you don't know much about it, don't bring it here for AfD. No. --KP Botany (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:SOAPBOX. This article simply exists to promote an external entity whose notability is far from proven (to put it politely). To take the simple semantic line, any article named Solid-state ionics should have a link from Ionic solid, no? And wow! Ionic Solid redirects to Ionic compound. On the other hand, the authors seems to claim that these are really special ionic compounds, because they are also solid electrolytes (as if the others weren't): now where does Solid electrolyte redirect to? Fast ion conductor. There is absolutely nothing in this article worth saving except a pathetic example of self-promotion. It should be speedily deleted forthwith. Physchim62 (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Voila Soapbox taken care of. What bullsheet. Maybe someone will post spam in Bill Clinton's article and you speedy it. --KP Botany (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not at all. The article doesn't assert notability which is different from those of Ionic solid or Solid electrolyte. Simply because the link has been removed doesn't stop this from being SOAPBOXing. Physchim62 (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#AfD alert Solid-state ionics. Brian Jason Drake 07:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why are you wasting your time trying to delete a stub article? The article is not trying to promote whatever asian society I put there. In any case, that asian society is no longer on the page and isn't an issue (nor would it be an issue requiring deletion). As per KP Botany, a "fast ion conductor" is obviously in no way shape or form a synonm of "solid-state ionics". Think for a second, one is a field and one is a type of material. This nomination makes no sense. Fresheneesz (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no rush here. If it doesn't have enough info yet - its not causing anyone any problems. But when someone comes along and sees a stub article, eventualy someone will add their tidbit of info. It takes a lot of energy to research obscure subjects like this, and deleting my work will just make it harder for the next person who wants to add some material about solid-state ionics. Fresheneesz (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The self promotion has been removed. It probably is not a snowball keep although it should be in my estimation. Fast ion conductor should be merged into this article as being a subcategory of solid state ionics. But, they are different topics. TStein (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why is this even here? This is "Articles for deletion". From what I've seen, no one (not even the nominator) has ever suggested that this article be deleted, only that (at worst) the contents are scrapped and it be made a redirect. If you want to discuss this article, go to the article's talk page or WikiProject Physics. Brian Jason Drake 02:37, 6 May 2009 (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.