Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thermal cycling

:{{la|Thermal_cycling}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Thermal_cycling}})

This entire article is written like an advertisment for a non-existent metal heat treatment known as "thermal cycling". However, anybody with a basic understand of materials science and metals can easily tell that virtually all of the content here is bogus. There are already articles written on heat treatment (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_treatment). Finally, this article does not contain a single citation or a reliable, listed source. I would be happy to discuss any of the claims made in this article. Mark48torpedo (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

— Mark48torpedo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep 3 million Google hits for "+thermal +cycling" with the first page describing exactly this process sourced by laboratories.. say that this is a genuine article. It has nothing to do with advertisements - DeVerm (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC).

::That's irrelevant, do you know how many uses of the term "thermal cycling" there are? Think bicycles and PCR for starters.--Pontificalibus (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

::: It's sad to see that you didn't read my comment accurately as I definitely said that I found the exact same process described as what this article is about. To make this clear: it means that the article describes a process that does exist and is not a fantasy as stated by nom. I did write all this but seem to need to repeat it --DeVerm (talk) 04:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC).

Thermal cycling is actually a real phenomenon. Usually, it refers to damage caused to structures / machines / materials due to repeated changes in temperature (if materials with different thermal expansion coefficients are attached to each other, one will try to expand/contract more than the other when heated / cooled, causing stress and possible damage). However, the material treatment method this article refers to does not exist, as far as I am aware, and the actual effects that this article claims thermal cycling has are dubious from a material sciences standpoint. If somebody is willing to rewrite the article from scratch about the real phenomenon, keeping it is a good idea, but as the article stands, it contains no worthwhile content whatsoever.

Mark48torpedo (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

:* Come on Mark, I have a high forehead too :-) I mean what I wrote: that I see Google hits that are about the same process as described in this article. Here's an example: http://www.nitrofreeze.com/thermal_cycling.html Thermal Cycling --DeVerm (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC).

:* I couldn't find any other results than the NitroFreeze firm which describes thermal cycling as a beneficial heat treatment process... do you have any other examples? For example, a third-party source which describes this process, not some company which claims this process works at the same time as providing it. The vast majority of what I found on Google was related to the problems caused by thermal cycling 128.100.148.113 (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

::* The NitroFreeze link is what I posted just above your message. It shows that the AfD is incorrect because obviously the process as described in the article exists, contrary to what the AfD states --DeVerm (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC).

::* DeVerm, please find other evidence other than the NitroFreeze link that this process exists. A SINGLE website made by a company describing this process by a company which has a vested intest in praising this process to the heavens is not reliable evidence. There is no guarantee whatsoever that the process works as advertised, which is how this article is currently written. In addition, the description of the process on the Nitrofreeze website is completely unscientific (e.g. they describe removing stress from materials by reducing the temperature, which is absolutely absurd from a material sciences standpoint). At the moment, all of the content in this article is unverifiable.Mark48torpedo (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

:::* Mark, why would it up to me to find extra references? I have shown that the case you made for this AfD ("advertisment for a non-existent metal heat treatment") is not valid because it exists and is even being offered. --DeVerm (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC).

• Delete I'm not an expert on the science being discussed in this article so I can't comment on content, but without proper citations there's no way to verify any of this information and therefore it has no place on Wikipedia since all encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Additionally the amount of "Google hits" a term gets is by no means a stand alone reason to keep an article Cshaase (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

:* I'm as uninvolved with this article and the technology as you are but it only took me 30 seconds to verify it like I show in my remark above. --DeVerm (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC).

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Comment Doesn't sound like an ad to me, it's simple, clear style might be in part why it is here in deletions. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete The general topic is a valid and encyclopedic topic, though normally called simply Heat treating, for which we have a pretty good comprehensive article. However, this actual article is oriented around the specific process of thermal cycling though a very low temperature stage, usually with liquid nitrogen. We already have an article on it, Cryogenic treatment, which, though pretty sketchy and in need of referencing, is a more comprehensive basis for an adequate article. We could use a redirect, but the present article should probably be deleted first, and the redirect should be to the ordinary and general meaning, Heat treating. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 30 July 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.