Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Particle

Add links
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 keep. Keep. Nothing that cannot be fixed through editorial process. Could as well transform to energy instead but let's not. Tone 22:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Particle

[edit]
Particle (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 article has no definite topic. The article seems to just be a dictionary definition of particle with a rag bag of different examples collected by editors. The citations are to dictionary definitions or particular examples. It is a disambiguation page clothed as an article rather than a topic described to any great extent by any source. I believe it should be deleted under WP:NOTDICDEF. Dmcq (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you're proposing to discard existing content, wouldn't "delete and redirect" be closer to what you're suggesting? We already have a disambiguation page, per above. What specific cleanup are you proposing, so that I can better understand where you're coming from? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "delete and redirect" removes the content from the history (as visible by non-admins, anyway) rather than just from the page. Basically that's for cases where the content itself is adjudged harmful (say, personal attack or copyvio) rather than just not the way way we want the page to look. --Trovatore (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's still there in the history of the redirect page, in the times I've seen this happen. The AfD result is taken to mean "this shouldn't be its own article", rather than "the history needs to be burned with fire", for this sort of situation. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the AfD was closed as "delete and redirect" but the closing admin merely redirected, then he did it incorrectly. --Trovatore (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What information do you feel should be here that isn't already at point particle or subatomic particle? A student searching on "particle" would immediately hit the disambiguation page, which should answer all of their questions. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would not answer anything, because almost everything listed on the disambig page is merely a kind of "particle" in the general (and clearly primary) meaning of the term. This should not be a disambiguation page listing different kinds of particles for the same reason that Soft drink is not a disambiguation page listing all the different kinds of soft drinks. bd2412 T 22:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SOft drink is a valid topic. There are texts about soft drinks in general. I can say I want a soft drink. There aren't texts about particles in general including elementary particles, stars and colloids. Dmcq (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This does not appear to be a single concept. That's the point of the threads that have occurred at WT:PHYS, and the point of the nomination, and the point of my comment. Your attempt to unify it into one does not seem to be backed by the references you cite for each of the sub-topics. I agree that the set of concepts is very important, both in physics and elsewhere, but it is already covered on Wikipedia. Virtually everything you've put in the article so far is material that would be better off at point particle, so I'm puzzled as to why you wouldn't just improve that article instead, and have particle redirect to the disambiguation page. Do you at least see where my objection comes from, even if you don't agree with it? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The concept is that particles are things which are considered small when compared to the scale of the situations, i.e. whose dimensions can be neglected, or otherwise irrelevant. That concept, or its implications, cannot be covered adequately in a disambiguation page such as particle (disambiguation) or at point particle.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, that's the whole basis of the point particle article - that you have a situation where you can model entities as being pointlike. This is mentioned in the first paragraph of that article. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because the concept of particle is larger than that of point particles? Compositeness vs non-compositeness, microscopic vs macroscopic, etc... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah! I'm going to be notorious at last. The paparazzi will hound me. Chicks will ask to have my baby. My time is now! ;-) Dmcq (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)is[reply]
On a more serious note I feel editors setting up a topic they feel notable without being able to find anybody who's bothered to discuss it is totally against the spirit of Wikipedia. We should be finding what reliable sources have found notable and summarizing those topics. Dmcq (talk) 09:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but change name a bit. Since the article is a general one talking about the concept of particles in physics (with the understanding that chemistry is a branch of physics) I think the name should be Particle (physics), which instead now redirects to THIS article. The simple Particle should direct to the dab page. We are NOT talking about mathematical particles or gramatical particles, after all. SBHarris 00:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion on WP:PHYS which investigated this and concluded that this meaning is the primary one (see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). I suppose a move request could be made but I doubt the conclusion would be any different. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article would benefit from a particles in chemistry section, but I'm no chemist, so I don't know much about that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am coming from a computer science background, and for me the primary meaning of "particle" is that used in particle systems. You see, there is no general primary definition. Nageh (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the topic? Does it include include stars and galaxies, that is more point particle. Most people would think subatomic particle when asked about particles in physics. Or should whoever can put in any old mention of a particle in like particles in colloids, particle simulation in computing, particles in soot, particles in sparks, particles in chemistry like HEADBOMB is asking for just above etc etc? For a topic you need a source which does some sort of analysis of the main bits of it. Not a dictionary definition top hang every mention of the word on that strikes an editors fancy. Dmcq (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the Collins English Dictionary? Also Particle (physics) redirects here per a discussion on WP:PHYS.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. point particle is about the approximation that we can sometimes approximate particles as mathematical points. This article is about real particles, small objects that play a significant role in science. Other good points for keep are given above. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Dab. The nominator is right. There is not definite topic in this article, and what is listed is actually perfectly suitable for a disambiguation page. Also, the term particle is so general that really this should be a dab page rather than particle (disambiguation). Nageh (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Edit: Despite the immediate appearance a reasonable article can and probably should be created. I'm also leaning towards accepting particle (physics) as the primary meaning (despite I think of linguistics and computer graphics, which is probably due to a language issue)... well, retracting my vote. Nageh (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not at all suited for a disambig page. Making it one would just be passing an unending problem on to those who fix disambig links, since the there is a clear primary meaning associated with the term particle, for which all other meanings can correctly be described as kinds of that primary meaning (except the extremely minor usage of Particle (band)). bd2412 T 22:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a useful article tying together concepts of particles across different fields. Sure, it could be improved, but Wikipedia is a work in progress and this is definately an encyclopedic topic. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the dab page should be primary. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Common sense, this is a notable encyclopedic topic. Dream Focus 08:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a topic, which should properly introduce the reader to all the forms and variations of what has been defined as "particle" by the various fields. A dab page does not cut it for a general reader, interested in the concept and potentially in certain subsets of the meaning. This is an overview page, a work-in-progress towards an overview page that an encyclopaedia should have on a topic this broad, where a general reader may not even know how individual fields treat the term. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a topic, it is a collection of topics. And an arbitrary, too. Furthermore, we are no dictionary. Nageh (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Particle (disambiguation) page is a far better landing spot for someone looking up 'particle'. I think this article is a hinderance to people trying to find what they want. If you can find a source describing what you are talking about then you'll have given a far better reason for keeping. I didn't find anything like that so it is obviously not a notable topic. Dmcq (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not. Case in point, the vast majority of the 50 or so links to particle (disambiguation) (back when it was located at particle) should have linked (and now do link) to an article on the concept of particles, rather than on of the links found in particle (disambiguation). The link at the top takes care of anyone who was looking for grammatical particles or elementary particles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is for topics with a number of subtopics, like economics, the United States, dance, mathematics, global warming, intelligence that sort of thing. They each have general works written about them and are topics in their own right. And I'd much prefer that people in future who just stick square brackets round particle have their contributions properly disambiguated rather than point at the wrong place. If anything like this survive then rename it Particle (physics). If this was a proper topic you would have some reference that gave its extent and be able to write a few lines about this chemistry input you want. All I can see is a definition of particle from a book about meteorology followed by you extending that to stars in galaxies in a subsection. That is not a topic. Dmcq (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see WP:SUMMARYSTYLE yourself: "Wikipedia articles tend to grow in a way which lends itself to the natural creation of new articles. The text of any article consists of a sequence of related but distinct subtopics. When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text can be summarized from the present article and a link provided to the more detailed article." Specifically, note that the subtopics must be related.
BTW: Coming from a computer science background I expect particle to point to particle system. You see that a disambiguation page would be much more appropriate. Nageh (talk) 11:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is. The the "overall definition" is that a particle is an object whose geometry, size, etc... is negligible for the context at hand. Or alternatively, a small objects who's dimension are significantly smaller than its surroundings. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be a bad definition, since in many the cases the size and geometry of particles is very relevant. For example, the sky is blue exactly because dust particles in the atmosphere have a particular size. When considering granular media, the geometry of the particles is very important. So even your "overall definition" fails.TR 15:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly so; if I wasn't busy dealing with this deletion dicussion, I'd be expanding the article to include sections on particle physics, particle detection, particles in chemistry, antiparticles, ... per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. All editing is synthesis to some extent, but it definetaly is not the "original synthesis" refered to in WP:SYNTH. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry. That would not make a difference.--Wickey-nl (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Article long overdue V8rik (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not a science guy and I don't play one on TV, but this strikes me as a useful encyclopedia article about a worthy topic. Carrite (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Subatomic particle. If I'm putting particle in the search box, the subatomic article is the one I'm expecting to find. MLA (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect, but definitely do not disambiguate. Restoring this to a disambig page would merely compound the ongoing abuse of the disambiguation system. If it is turned into such a page, it will imcorrectly generate a continuous infestation of unfixable links, which violates the basic principle of disambiguation, which is that disambig pages should guide readers to the correct page on the specific term among various ambiguous meanings. The overwhelming primary meaning of "particle" in the pages that link from this is closest the concept of the particle in physics, the smaller unit from which larger things are (or were) made. bd2412 T 22:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely unlike "soft drink". The entries in particle (disambiguation) don't represent different types of particle - they represent very different meanings of the word, as used by different disciplines. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the name of the band (which is a very minor usage), all of these relate to the general concept of a very small thing as a component of larger things. That is not ambiguous, or in any case, is no more ambiguous than, say, Religion, for which we could in theory have a disambig page pointing out the many different kinds of activities that fall under that umbrella term. Contrast that with Mercury, a truly ambiguous term. If someone told you they just came from a lecture about Mercury, you would immediately have to ask whether they meant the planet, the element, the god, the car company, or something else. If someone told you they just came from a lecture on particles, you might question them about what aspects of particles the lecture addressed, but you wouldn't suppose that they were talking about anything other than those tiny components from which bigger things are assembled. I think that we as a community should be smart enough to figure out how to describe that in an article without having to confuse the situation by punting it to disambiguators to endlessly fix bad links arising from a bad decision. bd2412 T 22:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm convinced by the above argument also. And it occurs to me that WP's dab pages are often misused! Yes, they should be only used in cases like Mercury. bd2412, have you made sure this is part of MoS when it come to dabs? If not, you should do so. SBHarris 23:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you honestly feel that an article discussing point particles as mathematical constructs, subatomic particles, computer graphics particle effects, and particulate matter in the same space will provide a reader with any useful insight about any of them, then you're far more optimistic than I am. Beyond being "something that is small", they have very little in common. That's enough for a dictionary entry, but not for much more than that. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The computer graphics term, Particle system, is also very minor. Per our policies regarding disambiguation, we should exclude the existence of a primary meaning before turning this title over to a disambiguation page. The test for determining whether a disambiguation topic should sit at the "Foo" title or the "Foo (disambiguation)" title is whether there is a primary meaning for the term. "Particle system" would not even enter into the discussion absent some evidence that people regularly refer to it as a "particle". From the options available, it does not seem that anything compares to Subatomic particle, unless we have a meta-solution in the form of an article discussing the concept of particles more broadly. Remember, historically there have been many ideas of particles which turned out to be incorrect, but the idea itself as a concept has been around for thousands of years. bd2412 T 00:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia needs an article on the concept of particles. Concept articles may be difficult to write, but are very important to our core audience. --JaGatalk 23:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (OP) Have a look at the Particle (disambiguation) page which this one displaced. That has the various real meanings of particle in a straightforward form so people can find the one they want. And it includes all the ones which people think this is. There is a good reason for the notability requirement for articles, people make up articles like this one. If you want to keep this article in some form or other then find some source that covers the main topic. We are not in the business of making our own things up. Books do not cover the topic of 'Particle' comprising of everything from subatomeic particles to stars with colloidal particles, sparks and embers, dust particles, nanoparticles, atoms, idealized point particles in maths, sand particles, heaps of particles and pyroclastic flow. Surely you can do that simple thing if it is a reasonable subject? What limits are you setting? Is that original research to make up your own topic based on whatever feels okay to you rather than what people have written about? Otherwise a disambiguation page is the thing to use. The difficulty in writing the article is because it is not a notable topic. Dmcq (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Duplicate !vote: Dmcq (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.
Where? Dmcq (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the editor who left that tag is counting the nomination as a vote. Technically it is not, since someone can nominate an article for deletion out of a genuine lack of knowledge about the notability of a subject, and with no opinion about whether it should be kept or deleted. However, you have strongly enunciated a deletion rationale in your nomination, and probably should have restated with your vote that you are the nominator, to keep it from accidentally being counted twice. bd2412 T 15:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed out that I was the original proposer at the start. As far as I can see it is normal for people to put in a delete or keep if they nominate something. I'll put it in bold since you think it is important. Dmcq (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was just guessing at the rationale of the editor who tagged the vote. bd2412 T 16:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has rferences in it but the 'topic' is just cited to dictionary definitions of particles. And then the article goes way outside the boundary of even the dictionary definition in whats put into it. Dmcq (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As a chemist, I consider a particle to be a fundamental concept of the physical sciences, and a foundation upon which rests the Atomic theory. It certainly needs much more explanation than a dictionary definition. Articles on fundamental concepts are often the hardest to write, I know, but we shouldn't delete an article just because it's hard to write, or we'd be deleting things like Nature and matter (and then we'd all disappear in a puff of smoke!). Walkerma (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This is one of the most fundamental and most important concepts of all of science. So says Headbomb {talk and I agree. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A repeated argument is that this is too broad for a "topic". But I fail to see the problem with that. Wouldn't such an overview expand general reader's knowledge much better than the dab page? Say someone was told to learn about "particles", well the first thing they need to know is that each field treats "particle" differently. Then they can further study whatever specific meaning they want. And no, the dab page does not really teach anything but how to click links and the reader is taken directly into field specific discussion. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Headbomb; fundamentally important. I was surprised to see this article AfD'd. Side note: if we delete this article, every bit of matter may go with it too, including Wikipedia.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The simple scientific use of the term 'particle' is not presently covered. Every child in junior science is taught about particles as part of the particle theory of matter. This example of a Junior Science textbook from Google Books provides a decent example of what they are taught. The meaning outlined by the particle theory of matter (top of p.49 of text) is not included on the particle (disambiguation) page. The page Particle Theory of Matter is a redirect to atomic theory, a page which does not even mention (let alone explain) this simple scientific model. The pages on state changes do not provide particle-level explanations, yet these too are part of the teaching to junior science students. The term particle is commonly used in chemistry as a catch-all for either when the types of particles are not known or when they are not relevant. We explain boiling in terms of providing the energy needed to overcome the forces of attraction between particles so that we need not deal with the differences between boiling argon, water, molten sodium chloride, and gold. We might talk of the particles in a mixture because there are molecules, ions, radicals, and atoms and we want to refer to them all generally. It is true that physicists use the term particles in specialised senses (quarks etc) and point particles when constructing mathematical models but physicists are not the only scientists. When chemists speak of the ideal gas law we speak of the assumption that the molecules / particles having insignificant volume when compared to the whole, but we most certainly do not mean point particles - this is because the deviations seen in the cases of real gases can occur when the assumption breaks down, and point particles can never have significant volume. When particle theory is applied to solids the notion of these very small particles being effectively point particles becomes ridiculous. The current page needs great expansion and development, but it having been created is a definite improvement in encyclopedic content. EdChem (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a reference to a book that google will show some pages from please so I can see a citation for what you mean. The reference you gave doesn't even show the front cover. I fully understand that everybody has their own idea of what a particle is, just I have never seen them all stuck together in the way the article has them all stuck together and the article after a number of weeks and people asking for such a citation when it was first set up still has no such citation. I wish to have a disambiguation page instead of somebody making things up. Dmcq (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, the link works fine for me. The book is "Science for Life 7" meaning it is for year 7 students (first year of high school in Australia) and it is by Anne Garton and Ken Williamson. ISBN is 9781420203851 and it was published in 2005. You want pp. 48-58. I'm sure there are many other texts with similar content. EdChem (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That really is weird. I just get their picture of a brown book they use when they haven't a picture of the front plus a list of other books. Not even a snippet view. Dmcq (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think they've detected I'm not in Australia and only offer that view to people in Australia? I've not heard of Google doing such a thing but it's not beyond the bounds of possibility. 17:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
There already is an article Elementary particle linked to from Particle (disambiguation) describing that. I want the disambiguation page back instead of this one and this one removed. Dmcq (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then subatomic particle. The point is nobody discusses particle like this article does so why should it exist never mind be a primary article causing delay to what people really want? Dmcq (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that nobody uses the word "particle" in the generic sense of small things that bigger things are made of, in the aggregate? I'd like to see your proof of that. bd2412 T 19:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If people are insistent on keeping this article could we please at least have it moved somewhere else and particle turned back into a disambiguation page? Otherwise references to particle will be linked to this and never properly disambiguated to the proper article in the places referring to it. Dmcq (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not a rationale for disambiguating a page. If it were, our primary topic guidelines would be useless because article title for which there is a primary topic dispute is likely to have some number of errant links pointing to it. Under that rationale, we would have a disambiguation page instead of an article at University of California, since most references are intended to indicate one of the branch campuses. A link to a general discussion of a topic is not incorrect simply because there are more refined articles under the heading of that topic. bd2412 T 18:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Disambiguation gives the criteria in 'Is there a primary topic?'. If there is a primary topic where it is very likely that's what people really wanted then it should not be disambiguated but just point to the disambiguation page at the top. Here we have an article which is quite obviously not what most people really wants when they look up 'particle'. Most people tsaying they want 'particle' seem to want some sort of atomic particle - possibly one of those articles could be primary as being very likely what people wanted. However the disambiguation page works well to allow people to choose. Dmcq (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So should we have an article or a disambiguation page at University of California? How about at Secretary of State or Supreme Court? We also have a substantial majority of people on this page saying that the concept "particle" (of which the subatomic particle is just one kind) is an important concept to be conveyed. Should we ignore that consensus? bd2412 T 19:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be more direct, is a subatomic particle a kind of particle or not? Is a nanoparticle a kind of particle or not? bd2412 T 19:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm glad I've edited conflicted with this post. I've had a long reply, but it seems BD2412 was able to say in one sentence what took me twenty. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Particle should go the the page that discusses particles in various contexts (as parts of a larger whole, which would include particles of sand as well as subatomic particles), which is this one. With a header that says: for other meanings, see particle (disambiguation). The dab should be everything else. Just as is done now for chain reaction, sail, rocket, and the words mentioned above.

For you physics purists: remember that the people who want particle to direct to subatomic particle or even elementary particle, they're not physics based. Those definitions miss the physics implications of whether things are behaving as "particles or waves." In physics, you don't have to be a elementary particle (like an electron) or a subnuclear particle (like a neutron, which isn't elementary and is thus itself composed of particle), or even nucleus (made of many nucleons, themselves made of quarks). Entire atoms have shown interferance as waves, but otherwise are generally the fundamental "particles" of chemistry (the division which you cannot exceed without loosing chemical properties). So a page on "particle" as a general idea behavior (and yes I suppose it even does include particles of sentences, in grammer, and particles of galaxies in astonomy) is fully justified.

BD2412 and Headbomb have been making good points for this entire debate, and I'm very surprised at the resistance. I think it's just a matter of reactionary-thinking.

And by the way, when we say WP is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICTIONARY) we only mean that articles should not be words themselves (where they came from, their etymology, how they're used). It does NOT mean that we are prohibited from breaking down WP article structure using the dictionary definitions as guides (though perhaps not inflexible guides). On the contrary, not to use the dictionary as general guideline for writing structure would be a huge mistake, since WP is written in a natural language, and in a natural language, words have meanings, from common to uncommon. Most of WP does follow the dictionary. We'd be complete fools not to generally structure a word-lookup-based encyclopedia in any other way. In fact, as you may know, encyclopedias and dictionaries are closely related at "things" and that is (ultimately) why paper dictionaries start with "A" and why even in WP, most topics on dab pages are in alphabetical order. SBHarris 20:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no citation dealing with the topic except a dictionary. All these people have to do to show it is a reasonable topic is find a book or chapter in a book or a paper dealing with the topic. Saying I'm reactionary is not a reasonable argument. Producing a good citation is a reasonable argument. It is not a verifiable topic. Don't you think it would be better to do that than start just saying things like that I'm reactionary? If it is such an important topic don't you thing a straightforward search using google books would throw up thousands of good candidates? Find a citation talking about electrons and stars and colloids or something reasonably similar under a topic with particle or something similar in it. Dmcq (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See World for another example of an article based on a word in a dictionary rather than a topic. At least it doesn't stop people finding what they want easily. Isn't the earth a world? Don't you want world peace? Doesn't it include everybody in the world? At least you can find books titled something like 'The World' even if they aren't what that article is about. Dmcq (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's 23 references given in the article (plus the FR and the EL section), covering everything mentioned in the article. They come from organizations like the Particle Engineering Research Group, the US National Research Council, and the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, or come from classic general and specialist textbooks like University Physics and Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Dynamics or Physical Chemistry, to dedicated textbooks such as Particle metaphysics brought up in this deletion discussion earlier. It's pretty clear to everyone and their mothers that this topic is verifiable and meets WP:V. You think it fails WP:V. Consensus disagrees with you. Move on. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're citations for bits of the article. I'm not saying there aren't lots of topics which have particle in them which are notable. What I'd like is for something besides a dictionary definition of particle to justify the overall topic. As WP:Notability says 'if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article'. Or do you want to invoke WP:IAR and claim this as an occasional exception to that rule? Dmcq (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
to Dmcq: fyi, a web page outlining particle theory, and a book chapter on research about teaching particle theory. Chapter 9 of this book also covers issues of student understanding of the particulate nature of matter, as does chapter 4 (p. 67) of this book. EdChem (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you have pointed to is covered by Atomic theory. Particle theory points at particle physics rather than atomic theory - personally I think it should point at atomic theory and then even the name would be the same as what you were pointing at. Have you looked at Particle? Your references only cover a tiny fraction of its extent. Dmcq (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. Particle theory is not atomic theory because the particles involved are frequently not atoms. Try this site, with all its discussions of state changes in terms of particles. I've said particle and numerous other articles need expansion. My references do demonstrate the term 'particle' being used as a catch-all which might refer to atoms, or molecules, or radicals, or ions, or ion-pairs. EdChem (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bother, he'll either ignore it or dismiss it with a back of the hand like he did with B. Falkenburg (2007). Particle Metaphysics. Springer. ISBN 978-3540337317. or "What is a particle?". Particle Engineering Research Center. 23 July 2010., and plenty of others which have been mentioned to him a few times now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I misssed that reference "What is a particle?". Particle Engineering Research Center. 23 July 2010.. I am very sorry about that, it is the only reference I have seen that goes anywhere near addressing my concerns about the article. Why is it in just as further reading rather than as a citation? and in particular as a citation to give the article some scope and define the topic? I think it could probably be counted as a reliable source and basis for the article though I had really been looking for a proper book about the subject or paper about it. Don't you think it peculiar that you can't produce something better? Dmcq (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Something better like entire books dedicated to the topic, like B. Falkenburg (2007). Particle Metaphysics. Springer. ISBN 978-3540337317., now mentioned for the fourth time in this deletion discussion, which can be found immediatly besides the PERC website in the post which you are replying to? Or book chapters, like F. Reif (1965). "Statistical Description of Systems of Particles". Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Dynamics. McGraw-Hill. pp. 47ff. ISBN 9780070518001. which have been in the article for the last 6 days now? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you used them as a basic for the topic it would be already covered by the article about atomic theory. The web page 'What is a particle?' seems to be the only one that corresponds in any reasonable sense with the article. If you base it on that web page I think you might end up with a reasonable topic. Personally I'd have called it particulate matter but particulate seems to have been taken up by an article about pollution. Dmcq (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was useful to me. It contains the fundamental info, I was looking for. If the information is correct, it should NOT be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.141.41 (talk) 22:50, 2 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Particle&oldid=1255408380"