Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isotopically pure diamond

: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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be bought up on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

=[[Isotopically pure diamond]]=

:{{la|Isotopically pure diamond}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isotopically pure diamond}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Isotopically pure diamond}})

delete or merge with diamond. sure there are sources just like there are sources for Barry Bond's knee but those sources would do better in teh article on diamonds Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Speedily keep. Four reliable sources already included in the article. The source of the diamond is not what is important, it is the properties of the resultant diamond. Boghog (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • :there are reliable sources for each section of the article on diamonds as well. maybe we should split each section of the diamond article into its own article! maybe instead of Diamond we should have History of diamond, Hardness of diamand, Electrical conductvity of diamond, Diamond formation in meteorite impact craters, etc. yay! Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • :: Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant by sources. I thought you meant the isotope of carbon used to make the diamond. So we both agree that the sources in the isotopically pure diamond article are reliable. So the real issue is whether the subject is notable enough to justify its own article. The sources demonstrate the subject is notable (isotopically pure diamonds have useful properties). At the same time, these isotopically pure diamonds are a very specialized topic that would distract from the main subject matter of the main diamond article, especially considering this article is WP:FA and meant to be read by a wide audience. Furthermore, the diamond article is already becoming very long (84 KB), and if additional material were added, it would soon be time to split out some of the material into specialized subtopics. So I see no compelling reason why the isotopically pure diamond article should be merged into the parent article. Boghog (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • ::: If there is enough subject matter for a separate article on one or more of the subsections, I do not see the problem splitting off a separate article. This happens all the time (see WP:SPLIT). Boghog (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • :::: frankly i think History of diamond would do better on its own than this article is. at least the history of diamond section in Diamond is well written. this article is not and merging it into Diamond could get it the attention it needs. more to the point more editors visit the diamond article than they do this one so there is a better chance that this material - which needs improvement - will be improved. Misterdiscreet (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • ::::: I have edited the article to the point where IMHO it is now reasonably well written. Certainly it could be improved further, but in its current state, I think it is well worth keeping as a independent article. Boghog (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable form of synthetic diamond with distinct physical properties leading to specific applications. Compare to articles like amorphous metal to see how specific forms of a material can have unusual and useful characteristics that distinguish them from the "normal" form. Meodipt (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thoughts. There is no question that information is notable and reliable. I would oppose merging it into diamond or synthetic diamond because this information is too technical for those FAs. Merging into GA material properties of diamond is feasible, but it is not just a material property - this topic (should) cover synthesis, properties and applications. This article can easily be expanded if time permits, thus my current vote is to keep it as is. Materialscientist (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • : the article on Special relativity contains highly technical bits of information along with extremely non-technical discussions. that this article contains technical information is not a reason not to merge Misterdiscreet (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • ::Sure, some articles, like quark have to contain highly technical elements, but diamond is not such a topic and isotopic diamond is (yet) more of a scientific curiosity. It is not impossible to merge this article, I am just inclined to leave it be and expand myself later. Materialscientist (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • :::after this latest expansion i think this article should be merged into Carbon-12 and Carbon-13. when talking about properties of isotopes anyway isotropic purity is assumed. Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • :::: Should we also merge diamond into carbon? Boghog (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • :::::No, 12C/13C substitution in diamond mostly aims at specific solid-state properties, which are unique to the specific lattice structure of diamond. For thermal conductivity, the substitution should be as much 12C as possible, but for research purposes, the 12C/13C composition has been varied from 0 to 100%, thus it is not just 12C or 13C. Materialscientist (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • ::::the Carbon-12 section of this article has two sentences of substance. the Carbon-13 section has one sentence of substance. merging those into Carbon-12 and Carbon-13 is not at all the same thing as merging an 80kb page into a 64kb page. if this is not an appropriate article to merge than what is by your reckoning? or is splitting a one way operation? you can split but you can not undo a split? Misterdiscreet (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • ::::: I strike the rhetorical question that I wrote above since it is distracting from the central argument. As Materialscientist mentioned above, isotopically enriched diamonds have a spectrum of properties as the composition is varied between 0% to 100% 13C. So the topic cannot not be cleanly split between the 12C or 13C articles. Furthermore since the physical properties and methods of manufacture of of the extreme types of isotopically pure diamonds as well as spectrum in between are so interrelated it make sense to have one unified article that talks about both. If one splits this material between two articles, there would be a significant amount of redundancy. Finally the topic of diamonds (natural or isotropically enriched) is a very specialized subtopic of carbon, including the subject of diamonds in any of the carbon articles gives undue weight to diamonds . Boghog (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2010 (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.