Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electron bubble

:{{la|Electron bubble}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Electron bubble}})

Fringey coatrack is ill-sourced at best. talk page shows concern over notability from way back. Mangoe (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

:Keep A quick search for "electron bubble" on [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-basic_connect ADSABS] reveals plenty of publications on this topic], from very respectable journals (PR, PRL, RMP, PSS&T, JPSJ, ...) from a variety of authors. One section read like a plug for someone's pet theory, which I removed, but other than that the article didn't raise any red flags. Any remaining problems of sourcing can be cleaned up, but deletion on grounds of notability seems like a mistake to me. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep: Perhaps there is concern over current quality of the article, but I agree with Headbomb that the concept seems notable. E.g., even if a theory is mostly wrong it can be notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep A very notable topic of encyclopedic value, this needs citations but a quick bing search reveals endless potential sources, here is a promising one[http://www.physics.brown.edu/physics/researchpages/cme/heron/bubble.html] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix B 1of3 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 23 October 2011
• Withdrawn by nominator. Thanks for checking this out. Mangoe (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

: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.