Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stiction

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 early closure as speedy keep -- The Anome (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stiction

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

Dicdef, OR, unsourced beyond dictionaries. Tagged for maintenance for 3+ years with no improvement. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator was perfectly at liberty to improve this article himself. This is an important topic in engineering, easily referenceable from several different fields. The poor writing quality and triviality of some of the examples is no reason to delete the whole topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Yes, that's right, it's impossible to do a starting course without this topic. That it needs improving is undeniable, citations not least. But it's right we have an article on this topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Google scholar finds 829 articles with stiction in their titles; no doubt there are many others that treat it nontrivially but have other titles. Also see e.g. these two examples of books with entire sections about stiction. AfD is not for improvement of articles on obviously encyclopedia-worthy topics. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Stiction, in spite of its apparently silly nsme, is the correct name for a real physical phenomenon that is of interest in science and quite important in engineering. -- The Anome (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Pseudofusulina (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per wide range of sources mentioned above. -- 202.124.72.253 (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2012 (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.