Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modified Bragg diffraction Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Modified_Bragg_diffraction

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. Cirt (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modified Bragg diffraction

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be a recreation of a page, Modified Bragg diffraction in quasicrystals that was previously removed and redirected to Quasicrystal. The only references are to a self-published book and a single article both by the article's creator, so the article has problems with WP:COS and WP:N. And it's not even clear the article is about "Modified Bragg diffraction". Basically an unnecessary recreation of a WP:POVFORK JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There does seem to be a problem with this article and Compromise spacing effect pushing POV and OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Similar for Quasicrystal (to which this was a redirect). --Crusio (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compromise spacing effect --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV-pushing FORK. --Crusio (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Delete Material of article is unencyclopedic and appears to be mainly OR and OS and not yet to have attained mainstream acceptance. I make no comment on whether the material in the article is scientifically valid. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - The material is sourced but shows no proof of scientific consensus, and COI is a concern. I wonder if some of the academic material can be however merged in some articles, where it could have a place as one of the viewpoints on the matter. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the material might be real, but is presented as an abstract theory without connection to the real world. Adding the COI concern and self-citation, the article looks like promotion of a single-hand developed theory. Refereed publications do not mean much in this case: unfortunately, it is way too easy to publish a journal article or even a book nowadays, if it is a minor publisher, such as the case here. Materialscientist (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not even a minor publisher but a vanity publisher. you pay them, they publish your book, whatever the contents... --Crusio (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this true also for ref.3? (the Solid State Communications ?)--Cyclopia ^talk 13:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reacted to the previous ocmment on the book. SSC is a journal with a reasonable impact factor (1.557; 26th out of 62 journals in its category). --Crusio (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2010 (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.