Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faudree Effect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Faudree Effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The term "Faudree Effect" does not appear in any primary literature search or Google search (modulo Wikipedia mirrors) as far as I can tell. The given primary source has received negligible citation (I don't contest the correctness of the work) and does not meet WP:GNG in itself. This appears to be a concerted effort by the editor Geometric777 to promote or define the term Faudree Effect, having previously added large discussions about the "Faudree Effect" to Polymer degradation and Polymer. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete: Original author had already blanked the article in order to signify its withdrawal. -- BenTels (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have undone my closure of this deletion discussion as the author of the article has re-posted his text to the page after blanking it and it then being speedy deleted CSD G7. Please continue the discussion. Thanks. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. 0 non-wiki hits on Google for the term. Faudree mostly appears in a single patent application. Research on galvanic degradation of polymers obviously exists but Faudree does not pop up. (Especially when looking for pdf's and ignoring blog-style pages.) Nageh (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. OR and O SYN. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- 'Delete For obvious reasons on reading the article. EEng (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2011 (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.