Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isotropy
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 03:49, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Isotropy (née Isotropic)[edit]
This article appeared almost 4 years ago as a simple dicdef. Over the years, people have added material on Isotropic radiation, Isotropic manifolds, Isotropic antennas, and Isotropic bands. These should have been separate articles, and indeed Isotropic Antenna already was. I've created stubs for the others, and the original dicdef is now on Wiktionary. Since there's no ambiguity to disambiguate (no two articles with the same name), there's no point in converting the article into a dab page. Die! Die! Die! Die! ----Isaac R 03:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Actually, I think it could make a prettty good dab for people looking up Isotropic. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But people don't look up "isotropic" -- they look up "Isotropic radiation", etc. OK, maybe somebody might type in just "isotropic", because they can't remember what isotropic thing they're looking for. In which case a dab page might make it harder for them to find what they're looking for. Suppose they want "Isotropic fornicators" and whoever wrote that article forgot to add it to the dab page. They're out of luck. But if there is no dab page, searching for "Isotropic" gets you all the articles with "Isotropic" in their title -- much more reliable. Let's save disambiguation pages for page names that are actually ambiguous. ----Isaac R 04:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Searching for "Isotropic" gets one the articles with "Isotropic" in their titles irrespective of this page's existence. Uncle G 07:09, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
- But people don't look up "isotropic" -- they look up "Isotropic radiation", etc. OK, maybe somebody might type in just "isotropic", because they can't remember what isotropic thing they're looking for. In which case a dab page might make it harder for them to find what they're looking for. Suppose they want "Isotropic fornicators" and whoever wrote that article forgot to add it to the dab page. They're out of luck. But if there is no dab page, searching for "Isotropic" gets you all the articles with "Isotropic" in their title -- much more reliable. Let's save disambiguation pages for page names that are actually ambiguous. ----Isaac R 04:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This article looks a lot like a disambiguation page than an orientation page. But all the same, the segments are short, short enough that it is just about in the wrong place. I say split and Transwiki the parts to the Wiktionary. --JB Adder | Talk 05:22, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete (perhaps merge and make it a full article with anisotropic) drini ☎ 06:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, there needs to be a page discussing this concept. Kappa 07:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep agree with Kappa. Klonimus 07:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Which concept? The concept of isotropic radiation? Of isotropic manifolds? Of isotropic antennas? Of isotropic bands? Or of isotropy? What concept is denoted by "isotropic"? Uncle G 07:33, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
- There's a strong trend on Wikipedia to take a dicdef and turn it into a article based on the concept or concepts behind the word. Such articles are always vague, subjective, POV, soapboxy, or all of the above. But nobody seems to want to hear this, so I'm giving up on fighting the trend. ----Isaac R 15:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Which concept? The concept of isotropic radiation? Of isotropic manifolds? Of isotropic antennas? Of isotropic bands? Or of isotropy? What concept is denoted by "isotropic"? Uncle G 07:33, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
- Keep. Perfectly good article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article is not great as it stands, but it is useful enough. Even though I think converting this to a disambig would be preferrable. Sjakkalle 09:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, concur with Kappa. Megan1967 10:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and turn into a disambiguation. Mgm|(talk) 14:30, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep --- disambiguation. Vonkje 16:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — disambig. — RJH 19:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Isotropy is a very important concept by itself, do not turn it into a disambiguation. --Nabla 23:53, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
- Keep - Isotropy deserves its own article with a section named "See Also" or "What involves isotropy?" with links to the various isotropy-related articles. (isotropic radiation, isotropic manifold, isotropic antenna, isotropic bands) Jared81 07:05, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.