Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compromise spacing effect

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise spacing effect

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

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modified Bragg diffraction. This seems to be another WP:POVFORK by the same editor, created to promote his website and self-published book. It also says nothing about what the "Compromise spacing effect" is, but instead seems to be just a collection of research results, with the supposed article topic an excuse to put them on WP. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an easy one, you don't actually have to be an expert on this subject to see that the article is exactly what the nom says: a POV-pushing FORK. --Crusio (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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) 01:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete / merge per my comment in the analogous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modified Bragg diffraction. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the material might be real, but does look like a re-publication, on WP, a single-hand developed theory. COI is a strong factor here. The article content is based on self-citation of papers published in minor journals (there is a few well-respected citations here, but they only support the general notion of quasicrystal). Materialscientist (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete – Although the article isn't that poorly written, it looks like a COI (Bourdillona (the user who created the article) and Bourdillon, A.J. (the author of the first three citations)). —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 05:36, 18 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.