Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calculation of phase diagrams

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 and Rename to CALPHAD (method) B1atv 17:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (non admin closure)

[edit] Calculation of phase diagrams

Calculation of phase diagrams (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unwanted fork of the phase diagram article. (Note. There is an academic journal called CALPHAD which has been on the wanted articles list (as Calphad) for a long time. However despite my advice, the author of this article does not seem to want to create an article about the journal.) -- RHaworth 19:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This article doesn't seem to be a fork of the phase diagram article to me. A method for calculating phase diagrams might be notable enough to have an article, given the sources he lists. Could you elaborate on why you want to delete the article?

I do think that "Calculation of phase diagrams" is a bad title for the article in its current state, but that's a minor matter. — Ksero 19:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that I raised this mainly out of frustration at the authors who, emailed me for advice and then completely ignored the advice given. OK it is not a fork but why cannot it be merged into phase diagram? Or, if it stays separate, what title would Ksero suggest? -- RHaworth 07:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused. Is the article about a specific method for calculating phase diagrams, or just generally about the subject of how to calculate phase diagrams? If it's about a specific method, then I think CALPHAD (method) would be a good title. If it's just generally about how to calculate phase diagrams, then I agree that it should be merged into phase diagram — Ksero 09:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be the former - a specific method involving some sort of mathematical modelling of a thermodynamic system. However, the method seems to be confused with the journal in the article, as evidenced by the logo. I agree with Ksero that, if the article is kept, CALPHAD (method) would be a less confusing title, with maybe CALPHAD (journal) for the journal, if it's worth a separate article. Cosmo0 14:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think adding the content of CALPHAD as the part the phase diagram will not be enough at all. Phase diagram is just one of the byproduct of CALPHAD and the importance of CALPHAD is increasing exponentially with the help from many other scientific improvement, such as first-principles calculations based on quantum mechanics calculations. BTW, this is Dongwon Shin from the Pennsylvania State University whose advisor, Zi-Kui Liu, is the current editor of the journal, CALPAHD. I think CALPHAD has reached its maturity with the 30 years' history. --Dwonshin 21:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwonshin (talk • contribs)

• Keep. Seems to be a legitimate description of a method, as far as I can tell. However, some of the details (the logo and link to the "official website") clearly belong to the journal and should be removed. Cosmo0 19:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, with the condition that it needs to be retitled as discussed above. I don't think that a very specific method for calculating phase diagrams should have the general title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jermor (talk • contribs) 01:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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.