Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conductivity near the percolation threshold

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. (non-admin closure) WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conductivity near the percolation threshold

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Dubious notability of an obscure physics subject. Article is based on four primary sources only. --Altenmann >talk 18:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to be a well-studied topic. There are multiple review articles about the subject, for example: [1][2][3][4] --130.234.230.66 (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator claims that all four sources are primary. However, the 119-page paper with abstract beginning We review, introduction This review ..., and conclusion One of the main issues of this review ... is quite clearly a WP:SECONDARY review paper. Its focus is [the] dielectric properties of binary materials ... in particular ... the description of the critical region of percolation theory, providing substantial coverage of the article topic. Likewise, the 123-page book chapter Physical Properties of Macroscopically Inhomogeneous Media in the long-running book series Solid State Physics (subtitled Advances in Research and Applications) includes coverage of electrical conductivity and dielectric behavior near a percolation threshold (to quote the summary provided by the publisher). Finally, the search conducted by 130.234.230.66 identified several other review articles covering this topic, e.g. Electrical and thermal percolation in two-phase materials: A perspective, published in the Journal of Applied Physics.

Given this was a notability-based nomination, the basic due diligence clause of WP:BEFORE should be in operation here. Similar considerations may be in play for the nominator's concurrent AfD entry Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ising critical exponents, where the only justification provided was A weird article that contains a bunch of undefined Greek letters and some gobbledegook. I would urge the nominator to display greater care to avoid their contributions being perceived as disruptive. Preimage (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, strongly agreeing with Preimage both about the nomination and the equally inappropriate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ising critical exponents. I will strongly urge the nominator to be much more cautious with AfD of science articles in the future; given the apparent 200K edits they already have this is not a newbie mistake, and I do find their approach a bit troubling. Ldm1954 (talk)

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.