Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical and quantum conductivity

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. Really just an essay, but astounding it lasted a decade. Given the age I'd love to redirect it somewhere, but I can't find a good target. If anyone can think of one, please let me know and I'll restore/retarget. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Classical and quantum conductivity

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

The article has no clear purpose. Either it points to be a historical retelling of electrical conductivity formulas, an introduction to quantum conductivity, or a comparison article between quantum and classical phenomena. Either way it does no reach its purpose. The article is incomplete and it does not discuss the inaccuracies of a classical model, aside from using a few analogies. It is only linked by other articles as a curiosity. Plus no sources. It may be improved, but we might just do better without it. MaoGo (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons stated by MaoGo; I can just barely conceive of a worthwhile article on this topic, but it would be better written starting from scratch. --Steve (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or WP:TNT. Reads like an undergrad essay. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
TNT While the article's content is a mangling of different concepts, there is genuinely enough material for an article to be made here. I would be willing to look at doing the TNT if time permits. Sources should not be hard too find. Acebulf (talk) 04:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We could TNT it, but we would have to agree on how we can handle an article like that. Personally, I would prefer to prioritize the rest of the solid state physics articles. --MaoGo (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/TNT per above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay. Szzuk (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2018 (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.