Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinodal decomposition

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. -- Longhair\^talk 11:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spinodal decomposition

Confessed speculative nomination - I cannot make out whether this is a hoax, (though the topic is real enough), OR, nonsense ... or a really useful article. Any mathematical Wikipedians want to look it over? Springnuts 21:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google scholar returns sufficiently many hits to convince me that this is a notable topic. The article isn't very understandable in its current form, but I don't think that's a reason to delete it. I don't think pure-math Wikipedians are what's needed, so much as materials scientists; maybe try asking for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics as I think condensed matter physics is the most relevant category for this stuff. —David Eppstein 03:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please add sources, and say why it is interesting, and to who. --SmokeyJoe 12:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As has been already pointed out this article is on a real subject, it is just currently very hard to understand. This text was written by a friend of mine who originally wrote it for another purpose. When he decided not to use it for what it was originally intended for he put it up here for the community to use. We are currently in the process of re-writing it to make it more accessible to the average reader. -AndrewBuck 18:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Much of the material associated with spinodal decomposition has not been included yet in Wikipedia. It is my hope that this article will encourage others to expand around this article. I've been slow with updates, but that shouldn't be sole reason for deletion. LLJK-emf 19:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be sure that your contributions are attributed to independent sources, and avoid what might be accused of being your own "original research". --SmokeyJoe 21:21, 22 October 2007 (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.