Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic deformation in solids

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 no consensus. Given the age of the article and the larger issues that appear to be ongoing it was probably a bad idea to bring this to AfD at this time. I will make no determination as to what should happen to this article for now; it appears to be in the process of improvement (again, as part of a larger issue than just this article). Whether it ultimately winds up being merged elsewhere, made a redirect, simply deleted or survive as a standalone article I do not know and I cannot say at this juncture, but I urge all involved to allow the article building/discussion process to continue before throwing this one at AfD again. Shereth 18:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic deformation in solids

edit
Plastic deformation in solids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

(1) there are already articles deformation (engineering) and deformation (mechanics) waiting for being merged, we hardly need a third, disconnected article. (2) unencyclopedic. (3) this is a one-man show and likely to remain so. (4) the material inserted here has previously been deleted from other pages, see the ongoing discussion on Talk:Glass Transition.

Correction: The work was removed from consideration (by me) on one other page, so as to avoid a potentially irreconcilable dispute regarding page content. It was suggested to me by a senior group editor and fellow member of WP:Glass that I create an independent article. It has since been suggested that these articles might possibly merge some day in the distant future, after such a time when tempers and emotions have managed to quiet themselves.
Thus the article was created, and has since been largely supported (with editing recomendations) by the majority of that same group of editors and contributors -- all of whom I would look forward to working closely with in the near future in order to reach a group concensus on what constitutes a workable form of the article for the longterm benefit of Wikipedia and its more technically advanced sector of readers. -- logger9 (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too early by far for considering deletion The article has clearly been made up substantially of material deleted from other pages as you note - but that is not a valid reason per se for deletion. This is one of those very few cases where WP:PRESERVE has any validity. Does it need extensive work? Yep. Again not a reason per se for deletion. "Already articles" would apply if the information were in those article -- the first has a very cursory treatment of plastic deformation, the second none at all. Thus this article clearly stands apart from those two cited as reasons to delete this one. Is the article ill-written as it stands? Yep. Is that, per se, a reason for deletion? Nope. Is the topic notable? Clearly yes, as it is not claimed as a reason for deletion and the putative number of cites to be properly added is huge. "One man show" is not a valid reason for deletion. Most articles up for a total of a single day are "one man shows" and this is an extraordinarily weak argument for deletion. In short, no reason properly furnished for deletion. Collect (talk)
    "Is the article ill-written as it stands? Yep." All right, let's focus on that. In my view, and from my experience with the other contributions of this one man, I think the current article is uncurably ill-written. Uncurable, because as soon as you try to remove paragraphs that are off topic, or as you try to replace sections by a more concise summary and a few links to relevant articles, you will inevatably run into an edit war as I did on glass transition. Therefore it is preferable to slowly collaborate on stubs like the two existing deformation articles, instead of accepting in bulk a valueless and uncurable contribution like the present one. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Valueless" ?? "Uncurable" ?? How in God's name can that possibly be considered as constructuve input here ?? And who made you the new judge, jury and executioner of anything I have ever contributed to on Wikipedia ? What have YOU contributed here, except unending insults and slander to me personally ? -- logger9 (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask everyone to behave civil and to stop personal accusations here and on other WP pages. There are WP (conflict resolution) pages specifically devoted to that. Forgive my boldness, but I strike through offense. Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems, too early. The article was one day old, meaning you need arguments comparable to speedy deletion to bring it here. That said, after 5 days (I'm rewriting my old comment) I don't see any improvement, which is worrying. Yes, the article looks like a dumped text, but this means little as many editors write off-line (i.e. not in sandboxes) first. The author has been cooperative these days, and I do hope he will make this article readable. Materialscientist (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has been cooperative these days ?? He has been invited to defend his contributions on Talk:Glass transition - instead, he declares that he is fed up with having to defend himself, and that he prefers working on "on a new article" - this one. He has been given advise by several of you how to write in a way more compatible with what WP intends to be - yet he re-pastes his old stuff literally, including absurdities like
    "Mechanisms of attenuation of high-frequency shear and longitudinal waves were considered by Mason and his coworkers at Bell Labs with viscous liquids, polymers and glasses. The subsequent work of Litovitz, et al. in the Physics Department of The Catholic University of America led to an entirely new interpretation of the glass transition in viscous liquids in terms of a spectrum of relaxation phenomena occurring over a range of time and length scales.[62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84]" -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am truly curious why this "predator editor" who doggedly follows and openly attacks every syllable of every word that I print on Wiki beleieves this paragraph to be "absurd " ???? -- logger9 (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For an encyclopedia, this is an absurd paragraph. You say you are an associate professor at a four year college. Do you teach any courses related to this? Please try to write texts for a general audience. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you familiar with this work ? Have you read these stacks of papers, and thoroughly reviewed them ?? And if not, then who are you to judge ??? -- logger9 (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's excessive to have 23 sources for a single 2-sentence paragraph in any piece of writing. I assume this is what the other editors above are getting at. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha. Will edit accordingly. Thank you !-- logger9 (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the above quote, I did and do urge Logger9 to (i) avoid potential promotion ("at Bell Labs" etc.), (ii) avoid excessive referencing in his every article, not only this one. (iii) try to write for general audience. My first attempts aimed at getting rid of wrong statements. This does not mean the author should keep the complex and obscure writing style. This problems does remain. Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not consider "at Bell Labs" as promotional, but as a customary of writing review articles for colleagues in the same research field. That is also why I asked if Logger9 does any teaching of this subject, or whether he is a research scientist. Articles on wikipedia should have educational use. Lecture notes might be a suitable starting point, but the style of many review articles is too esoteric to benefit even physics undergraduates. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I told logger9 several times to formulate his articles in an accessible way, and at least the introduction is much improved, compared to his earlier articles, hence, I think logger9 did learn something. - Paula Pilcher is too aggessive at this point in time, despite being correct in some details. Paula Pilcher should co-operate in a constructive manner.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 06:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not per se constructive to add more and more text. In the interest of correctness, verificability, maintainability, and readablity, it may sometimes be more appropriate to remove paragraphs that are off-topic, or to replace long bunches of text by short summaries and links. I tried so in glass transition, and it did not work. Logger9 reverteddeletions, removed off-topic tags, did not answer to talk page arguments, and finally evaded discussion by moving his entire essay here. Substantial improvements are not possible without a massive cleanup (just READ the article to the end !). From past experience, however, it is absolutely clear that Logger9 will not tolerate such interventions without staging a new edit war or/and moving the contents to some new place. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The excellence of the topic for our purposes may be seen by its extensive coverage in numerous books. I have read the article and consider the writing to be of good quality, albeit not yet in our usual house style. The sourcing is also commendable. Your reference to the ARS seems to be some sort of ad hominem incivility but, in so far as it's relevant, my patrolling activities cause me to see great quantities of poor quality articles which do merit deletion. This article is nothing of the sort and the nomination is quite contrary to our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody doubts that the topic is important. Call it excellent if you want. Plastic deformation is certainly an interesting subject which merits to be covered better in WP. However, you actually prevent experts from contributing here if you come in defense of someone who is abusing the heading to dump pet material that is mostly off-topic. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel Warden will admit that he and I do not always agree -- but here I rise to his defense. Poorly written articles may well be improved -- especially if they are given more than a day to be worked on by others. I, in fact, do have a science background, and was not affronted by the article. And as for off-handed comments about the ARS, my position is quite clearly not influenced by that group one whit. We are left, however, with no actual reasons for deletion other than a claim now that "experts will not work on articles which are too poor" -- a position I find quite antithetical to WP policies. Collect (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. See above and below: There is at least one strong formal argument: this article has been created to circumvent an edit block under another heading. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, the point is not that the article is too poor. The point is: the text is mostly off-topic, it's loquacious, partly wrong, bordering theory finding; and from past experience we can be sure that any attempt to improve the text by removing the most blatant nonsense will inevitably to a repetion of the edit war we have had on glass transition. Any attempt to improve this article is doomed to be a waste of time as long as the original author keeps intervening. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which rather sounds like a routine content dispute -- which is not a valid reason for deletion. It might be properly at WQA, I suppose, but not AfD. Indeed it sounds as though you would auto-delete any article written by this author whicgh is not a valid function of AfD at all. Collect (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • ANI discussion is here [1]. This appears to be an attempt to evade article protection and I don't think that is something we should allow. Dougweller (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having read through the issue at ANI and elsewhere, its just one editor determined to delete something without proper discussion, or listening to what other editors are saying on the proper talk pages. If something does not belong in one article, then you can move it to another one more appropriate for it. Dream Focus 14:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The bulk of the content here is only remotely related to Plastic deformation, which is now a redirect to Deformation (engineering). It is absolutely inappropriate to move this piece of academic writing here, and it is disruptive to evade article protection. I commend Paula Pilcher for fighting the issue. Many other knowledgeable people have given up on enwp. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that AFD is not cleanup. You only nominate something for deletion as a last resort. Discuss things on the talk page of the article. And it being too technical sounding in nature, is not a reason to even consider deleting something. Dream Focus 14:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, you call it "technical" because you think it's your fault if you don't understand it. Please understand: there is nothing to be understood in this text. Understanding means making connections. If you don't see connections between subsequent paragraphs, or between paragraphs and the heading of the article, then it is the author's fault, not yours.

Actually, I think we can handle this issue by purely formal criteria: this article is nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the block of another article. This for itself should be reason enough for speedy deletion.

But if you want to judge this article by its actual merit, then please use your capacity of judgement, or try to attract more editors to this debate who are capable of forming their own judgement. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have grave concerns about this article. Beyond the issues with writing style and referencing, it appears that large portions of the content constitute a POV or content fork, an attempt by the creator to preserve content from the currently protected Glass transition article, which preserves a version he doesn't favour. That the currently live version of Glass transition doesn't include some of this content is irrelevant: there is no claim or policy that the protected version is the final version; the article was protected in order that consensus be reached. Some editors have argued that the creator was encouraged to create an independent article and this is that article; however it seems clear to me that the aim is to preserve Logger9's preferred content with the aim of merging it back into Glass transition at a later time, and he says as much above. The aim of protecting Glass transition and blocking Paula was not to simply delay discussion and split the content. It was to allow all users to discuss and gain consensus. Creating this new article subverts that aim, fails to solve the problems at Glass transition, and constitutes disruption. This is supported by the relevant guideline, which states: "Wikipedia's policy is that this practice is not a legitimate way for contributors to deal with a lack of consensus." Editors are expected to search for existing articles before creating new ones. It seems clear that at least two extant articles deal with the subject of deformation: namely Deformation (engineering) and Deformation (mechanics), and that they cover much the same content and there is currently a discussion over merging them. The guideline is clear on the matter: "Regardless of whether [the editor] deliberately created the fork, the result is the same: the content should be merged back into the main article." The question for me as the protecting/blocking admin now becomes what to do about the situation. Since the article appears to contain both forked and non-forked material, and the speedy deletion criteria are specific and narrow, I am deleting the forked material from this article and leaving the remainder for deletion discussion; editors may wish to reconsider their comments in light of the remaining content. Since the blocking policy disallows punitive blocks, I am issuing a warning to the creator of the article not to engage in future disruptive editing. I am also unprotecting the Glass transition article one day early in the hopes that allowing users to edit it will help stimulate discussion and the reaching of consensus on that article, but I will be watching it and will happily block anyone who restarts the edit war there. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to delete the dangling list of references. What is left of this article maybe could be rewritten and moved to Internal friction, but this lemma should nor redirect there. It should be deleted, or it should be redirected to one of the deformation articles. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't forget; I have no idea which reference refers to which portion of the text and someone will need to disentangle that if the content is kept or merged with the other articles. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the topic is OK, but it's incurably badly done; the guy who wrote it apparently has sources, but hasn't connected them to the content, so nobody can help by verifying, checking, and fixing parts that aren't quite right. I'd say start over, write a proper plastic deformation, incrementally, with references. Logger9 can be allowed to keep making such incurable messes; he should be given a chance to start over and do it in a way where collaboration is possible. Dicklyon (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Strong Keep. A most excellent and well sourced article. I agree it needs the references converting to inline citations, and to be made a little clearer for the non expert, but that is no reason to delete such a fine piece of work. I also agree with Exploding Boy about the need to avoid POV forks. However there doesn’t seem to be a POV fork here – as the article approaches the subject on a different level to deformation (engineering) or deformation (mechanics). Granted until the articles have been clarified, this next point is only clear if one has a level of technical knowledge that 99% of editors are unlikely to have. But if this article is a POV fork, then by the same token Human fertilization is a POV fork of our various articles on human sexuality.
  • Im not happy to see what could be border line ad homien attacks here. Its not realistic to expect everyone to be as proficient as article rescue squad members in grasping the essentials of a wide range of subjects , but one can at least hope we can all be civil. We're all wikkipedians here, lets try and do a professional job for the rest of the AfD! FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: POV or content forking is not the same as article splitting. Our policies allow the latter but prohibit the former. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case Im hopeing you'll decide this is a case of article splitting! Looks like there's a case to regard this as a fork from from Glass transition as you say. But only partially, to some extent it looks like different editors have conflicting ideas about the degree of depth to go into. Haveing two articles would give our readers the best of both worlds in some ways, and anyway there's only partial overlap. So Im hoping you'll choose to restore the deleted sections from this article? FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Topic is notable, the material is cited (albeit badly), and information is not repeated elsewhere. Name should probably be changed to 'Plastic deformation'. LK (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I postponed this !vote for a long time because I did not feel like going through such a densely written article. But I just did and it's completely inaccessible, and it's a WP:FORK of glass transition, strength of glass, physics of glass and so on. This, coupled with the unsalvagability of the current version, most of which is only remotely connected to the subject makes me say delete, and redirect to plastic deformation. The plastic deformation article can then be improved incrementally, and this whole mess can be avoided. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After long consideration, I'm going to also have to support deleting too. While the fork issues with glass transition seem to have been settled (by virtue of that article having been largely abandoned by all but one editor), there seem to be far too many issues with forking, with articles needing merging, and with an entire group of articles connected in some way with this article and with its creator. Rather than muddying the waters further, I think the problems need to be sorted out before they truly get out of control; this article can always be recreated if it's determined at some point that it's actually needed and useful. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having re-read the article its seems to be further improving in clarity and as of the early hours of this morning there's been massive progress with the references. Im not perfectly placed to judge, but the article looks to be a prodigious assembly of the best available relevant literature. Looks to be an extremely valuable resource for those working in this area. 100% agree that if we could have only one article in this area we'd want it to be much more accessible to the layman. But surely there's no compelling reason why we cant have multiple articles – especially as they approach the topic from different angles as well as levels of accessibility so there's very little overlap? FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The references seem to have a cutoff date about 25 years ago. Also, there should be no need for so many reference. A few authoritative textbooks and monographs should do, with may a few review papers for recents developments, if any. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe in referencing original work. 25 years is like the blink of an eye when it comes to quality scientific research. To dismiss the original work as "outdated" is to disrespect the original authors. Their work should be noted above those that have performed work derivative to theirs in history.
  • I have also reduced the total reference count considerably. If what you need is fresh references, we'll get them for you. Good things in life take time. -- logger9 (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Keep and continue working on it. This did not take AfD to get improvement started. Let the WikiProject work out the relationship between articles. DGG (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanisms

edit

The article here merely provides a brief introduction to the subject matter (albiet a very good one). Alternatively, the purpose of this article is to expand on the introductory discussion in order to describe the mechanisms responsibile for the mechanical behavior of both crystalline and non-crystalline materials. No where in the introductory article are microstructural defects even mentioned -- much less the influence of temperature and loading on their local and/or long-range mobility.

Without a discussion of the basic work that has been done in order to illustrate these concepts and measure them quantitatively in the laboratory, we are merely avoiding the real core and essence of the subject matter. Why not at least give it a chance ? Is it really so absolutely impossible to understand the work of these authors in summary ? Much of it is taught in undergraduate classrooms in quality programs in Ceramics, Metallurgy and Materials Science Engineering. And yet you insist on its comprehensive "inaccessibility". I am certainly no genius, and I don't think so. Can you read all of the articles that are published in straight physics ? Curious.... -- logger9 (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Would it be possible to close the deletion debate and to replace it by one concerning merging with existing articles on the article talk page? This seems to be something most could agree to.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 21:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editors can indicate support for merging in a deletion debate by writing "Merge and delete" or something similar. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:14, 9 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Plastic_deformation_in_solids&oldid=1140542104"