- 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of plasma (physics) articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Can be replaced by the category system. Otherwise, there is no notability for this article. This article seems to be an administrative article. Topic is also totoo narrow to be renamed to "Index of plasma (physics) articles")Curb Chain (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a purely administrative article, as it only lists articles which exist on wikipedia. That is why the category system is sufficient and this is redundant. I can't imagine how adding references can improve functionality of this page, as it only proves the articles are notable, which is redundant as only notable topics have articles on wikipedia.Curb Chain (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is also a new article I just created in November, and it is notable with 6000 views on its statistics chart. If you look at Index of radiation articles which has only 128 views in its statistics for that month that was created in 2005 and is not complete yet, which is kinda underrated since radiation is a huge x factor in science. This plasma list is good because it has a rack load of red links that one day could be created to a article, so its good to keep in touch with this article for it benefits people who want to find a plasma specific field of interest. Plus having all of plasma equations and creations it will help understand on how to make future plasma machines, weapons like a plasma window force field. Seems like you curb only want to delete articles I created List of laser articles, List of infrared articles and not try to help improve articles for this list will not harm anything and adding it to a category will make it less notable since some people have no clue of categories, plus Wikipedia category list does not show up on Google's search bar.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep or Strong keep for I did not know about these extra terms, but if the speedy keep does not count as a keep vote than put Strong keep. Art carlson I don't see how this list confuses or steers anyone away from the more useful categories for this list has almost every plasma related article. Again categories cant be searched on line google like list or index, plus you cant really type in category plasma physics with out this (:) after category, more people would just type in list or index of something instead of category they should not be deleted, having extra is a bonus of allowing Wikipedia people to find what they want in a more diverse way. I found a rare article Spaser, surface plasmon amplification by stimulated emission of radiation. This spaser article has no link to any kind of plasma physics article. Thanks to making this plasma list I been able to find dozens of unknown plasma articles that open a whole new world for die hard plasma people to know about very plasma article on this list. If you type in spaser plasma on google this plasma list shows up 17th on google which the more you type relating to plasma words it shows list of plasma physics at the top.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How often are you planning to vote on this?
- In software development, it is a good principle to do something "once and only once". It makes it easier for the developer to keep things up-to-date, error-free, complete, and understandable, and it makes it easier for the user to learn and remember how to do things. Some developers, however, hold to the opposite view, There's more than one way to do it. Wikipedia seems to lean toward the latter philosophy, so you and Burpelson may be right that Curb and I are arguing against Wikipedia policy in general as much as against keeping this particular page.
- The usual way to enter a category for browsing would be to go to any related article and then click the category link at the top. Colon free!
- If you are interested in spasers, you will type it into google and the top hit will be the Wikipedia article. Where's the problem? The reason Spaser is not linked to Plasma (physics) or in Category:Plasma physics is that it is a matter of opinion how closely the topics are really related. If you think they need to be associated, then you can easily make the wiki-link or add the category without worrying about your list.
- I don't understand your point about google and categories. If I google on "plasma category" the top hit is Wikipedia's Category:Plasma physics.
- Art Carlson (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am trying hard to understand why this article was not named "List of plasma articles". Even Index of radiation articles is broader
thatthan the subject matter of one 'state-of-matter'.Curb Chain (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The word "plasma" has several meanings in various fields, so the disambiguator "physics" is needed in the title. Or do you think that we should lump in articles about blood plasma (or the trivial meanings that you inexplicably gave more prominence than the two primary meanings in the disambiguation page) with the ones listed here? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing this to a comment. On reflection, this is a WP:UGLY/WP:LINK issue not a content issue. --Kkmurray (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I picked it because its my passion and its vital to science. How does it indiscriminate to anything it is not a Excessive listings of statistics its a list of plasma topics to help others find plasma topics or a specific plasma field. Spamming is when it relates to nothing of that topic or is sending garbage info to it, linking list of plasma articles to see also is not spamming plus I don't link every plasma topic only if its related enough to it. I just use the statistics chart as a example of how notable it is and compare it with others. I do not get any credit fame or reward for NO2 overdrive boosting the statistics up. If this plasma list is deleted than almost all of Wikipedia's list of articles on whatever topic should all be deleted example, Index of wave articles, Index of solar energy articles ,Index of energy articles, Index of radiation articles, List of Pokémon characters, and List of Pokémon, 90% of the world has no clue of these dinosaur like pokemon plus it has no use in real life. Like User:Stvfetterly said it meats Wikipedia's standards WP:LIST. This plasma list has been out for 3 months and only one person wanted it deleted it has decent amount of views better than its plasma category. Just curious how does this all play out if more people vote for it to be deleted would it be deleted.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I see no purpose that is not already served by Category:Plasma physics, or possibly by the search function. Red links for potential articles should be placed in Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Natural_sciences#Plasma_physics. If a user doesn't understand the Category system, adding a parallel List system will only cause more confusion and steer him away from useful categories on other topics. It could well be that other List and Index articles should be deleted, but that is no argument for keeping this one. Art Carlson (talk) 08:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per WP:NOTDUP, "redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Categories and list articles can exist simultaneously, to further accommodate user browsing per various user preferences. Also, per this section of the editing guideline, ..."Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Northamerica1000(talk) 12:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not, then, have exact copies of articles for every category we have?Curb Chain (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, why not? You are the one proposing that we shouldn't do that, so you are the one who needs to answer that question. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because we have a category system.Curb Chain (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been explained to you more than once in this discussion, the fact that we have a category sytem is no reason not to have parallel lists. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ...omitting the fact that if a need for a parallel list article is warranted because some deficiency of the category system.Curb Chain (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per the list meeting the purpose of lists on wikipedia (WP:LIST) and Northamerica1000's reasoning.--Stvfetterly (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We need list/navigation articles like this which do things that categories don't. This one a bit weaker keep than the others by this editor because the category comes a bit closer than the others. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article does not meet notability criteria. The "list" would indeed be better presented as a category. (Incidentally, with the absence of references, the "list" also fails verifiability, but that would be an indication for clean-up, not deletion.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A useful list that hurts nothing. I'm going to copy someone's comments from another deletion discussion: per WP:NOTDUP, "redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." ..."Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." I think arguing that it would be better served as a category also violates the spirit of these guidelines, as saying that something should be categorized does not appear to be a valid reason to delete a list. Both can exist simultaneously. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Both can exist simultaneously but what is the point of that?Curb Chain (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please reread the statement as it answers your question. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No it does not answer my question because if this was to be fact then the wikipedia would doubled with spam.
- The advantage of Lists is that you can add references to the article. Doing so would prove that an item on a list fits the inclusion criteria. This list here only lists laser-related articles on wikipedia. This serves no extra purpose that Categories do not.Curb Chain (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you should start an RFC on the guideline's talk page because your beef is with the guideline, now me. All I'm doing is stating what the rules say. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've run across several situations where a list of articles (which can include some context notes) would have been very useful in ways that categories don't fill the bill and disambig articles don't allow. And the guideline also supports this. That's why I advocate KEEP. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather, you are misinterpreting the guideline.Curb Chain (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No... I'm not. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per Per WP:NOTDUP and WP:LIST. And the nom's rationale ("This article seems to be an administrative article") is too vague and appears an IDONTLIKEIT argument. Cavarrone (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also use this plasma list as a fantasy/real science plasma guide. Ball lightning has numerous theories involving plasma mechanisms like Buoyant plasma hypothesis, some of these plasma equations help back up the theory to discover how ball lighting works plus its like a euphoria effect of encountering something new. By having ball lightning and these plasma mechanisms along with plasma equations to back it up inputting it right underneath ball lightning in a outline detail, is all that to much or just keep it basic like plasma space propulsion, plasma confinement fusion and so on. Where is the detail for plasma window from physics of the impossible is it not aloud to go into such detail, this plasma window along with other factors like laser curtain, carbonnanotube screen along with photochromatics to stop absorb or some kinda refraction reflection material to absorb the laser pulse beam with environmental x factors that might hinder this aegis series of shields like index of refraction, suns blazing rays, clod cover over cast sky or the enemy using a full force of a cosmic meteoroid impact clash so the timing of the tides earth rotation to hurl that meteoroid in the enemy's control, make sure your equipped with a airborne laser sensor to track and time your frequency laser switch from the intercontinental ballistic Missiles and preventing these projectiles infra red radiation or sonic spaser laser taser phaser gaser hazer saser maser hazer blazar quasar invader raider anything that has ASER at the end and every elemental cosmic atomic bomb force microwave any thing u can think of like a laser fence/mosquito laser that needs to know what kinda malaria wing pattern beat is the real malaria causing vector or else it will laser zap every vital mosquito specie. The point of all this is that wikipedia just explains in simple terms and not every detail or any extreme sequence of events that do play a role for the future. I understand these plasma laser infrared list are okay but wikipedia will not allow it to be like a text/fantasy real deal intrigueing article page, yes a plot summary with bloopers extra possible outcomes that might throw off the main concepts but why does it have to be a thriller or descent movie to be in Wikipedia, we can add all these events into a outline without names of movie characters overloaded with romance and box office money statistics, it sounds like it will get out of line chaos editors with random vandalizing jokes, but theres a way to keep it professional for a Plasma/laser outline fantasy article with relevant/wikipedians. Example imagine this list of plasma articles now imagine next to it saying list plasma/laser/fantasy real science kind stuff but locked to certain point for trusted wikipedians, but a side page where u add notes and if your serious they add u to the major laser palsma fantasy list league, this is obvious and easy not to get off track cause the headline will be next to it, what's the problem? plus it will say novice or expert or fantasy possible virtual world. Wikipedia has potential to be universalpedia buy borrowing wikipedia articles and saying hey thanks wikipedia for the upgrade, everyone's happy gilmore with more knowledge and less stress on just solving plasma equations with no NO2 to rage the bonfire adventure mind and than leading to a insane migraine. Is there a way to have this list as A-P and than Q-Z separate list to reduce loading time for possible future outline/glossary or is that only for category style. Art if u type in plasma window force field laser on the google bar or anything that is on this plasma list it will be 2nd choice maybe depending on the ratings or whatever that this might guide people that want to know on how to create a doomesday plasma laser device, even plasma experts like u might be satisfied with a list and not a money paying textbook or magazine with fancy or basic words that take a while to find what u need plus jumping back and forth trying to locate plasma related articles on the web that might end up with a spam. Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2012 (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.