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]
  • 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]


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]

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]
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]
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]

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]

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.
More