Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KuzykGap

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 KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 04:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1 vote to delete, 6 to keep.

KuzykGap, KuzykLimit[edit]

Original research, see Wikipedia:No original research. silsor 05:49, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Since there are links to the professor's web page and National Geographic articles mentioning his research, this doesn't seem to be original research. Rhobite 05:58, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete original research. Ollieplatt 06:21, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A Google Search on "Kuzyk Quantum Gap" shows 95 hits. A citation search on Web of Science shows this work has appeared in multiple articles such as in the refereed and highly prestigious Physical Review Letters. In addition, there are many citations to this work in many other refereed journals.
Merge into something with a reasonable title. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 06:30, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Not original research. Move KuzykGap to Kuzyk gap or Kuzyk quantum gap and probably merge KuzykLimit into that. Kappa 06:34, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Move as per Kappa. This isn't original research. The original research is the article in Physical Review that is cited. Uncle G 07:03, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
Not deletion material. Keep, move, rename, whatever - David Gerard 14:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Do not delete. Original sources are well referenced. Work is obviously not original.
Merge and redirect. Megan1967 02:04, 17 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.