Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domain wall (optics)

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Domain wall (optics)

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

Obviously the three Domain wall articles should be consolidated, because individually WP:NN MJH (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with the poster - there should be one article titled "Domain Wall". Currently, the magnetics one is the most complete and accurate, so merge the optics and string theory content into that one, retitle it "Domain Wall" and get rid of the disambiguation page. PianoDan (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I know that domain walls are extremely well known in ferromagnetism, somewhat well known in ferroelectrics, extremely obscure in optics, and I'm not so sure about string theory. I think magnetism is where the concept originated, and magnetism is still the primary picture that people have in their heads when they use the term domain walls in any context. Not all wall-like topological defects are called "domain walls" -- for example, a crystallographic twinning defect is never called by that term I think.

What's best to do about all this? I think ideal in the long term would be a Domain wall (generalized) article linking to our specialized magnetic domain wall article, the general ferroelectric article, the general string theory article, etc. The link domain wall should probably point to the magnetic article, not the generalized article. Later on, if someone writes a whole article on ferroelectric domain walls (for example), it's no problem, we can just update the link in the "generalized" article.

An alternative that would work for now is to have the full article on magnetic domain walls, with a small section at the end about domain walls in other contexts.

Either way, I doubt optical domain walls will ever have enough content for a full article, so to make a long story short, merge. --Steve (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hello, I am the user who split these three articles apart in the first place. The original reason for doing so was because they were on different topics. Seeing as they were, I split them and marked them as stubs. I originally disregarded how many references there were for that article, but looking at the article again, I believe that the article has enough notability to remain separate of an amalgamated Domain wall. There is one other independent reference that mentions Domain walls in optics, and even though there may be no others on the article, I believe that the article can be kept as a stub, open to expansion by anyone else who finds more content on the subject matter. OmnipotentArchetype0309 (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 13:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep as is I don't think the shortness of some of the current articles is a problem. It is a commonplace situation for terminological articles, and the current organization is clearer. Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 15 December 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.