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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Polymer solution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Useless chemistry stub which provides no actual information and no valid sources. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Syrenka V (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I see what appears to be a lot of Gscholar results for "Polymer solution." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to be a fairly substantial topic in chemistry. The quality of the current article is not a valid reason for deletion. I've added a textbook on the subject to further reading. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I've no idea whether a "solution" would count but there is also WP:NCHEM to consider, I guess. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Google Scholar reveals page after page of high-quality citations, not to mention the textbook specifically on this topic, already added by StarryGrandma. I've created a section on "Applications", moved some of the existing material there, and added an article about use of polymer solutions in LEDs, and a patent about their use in fracking. The limiting factor is the technicality of the topic; it would take an expert to make optimal use of the material. The answer is to keep the article around so that that can happen — not to delete it.

—Syrenka V (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Teraoka textbook is enough to establish notability of the topic. The lack of information in the article is reason to expand the article, not delete it. ChemNerd (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The fact that the article needs to be expanded does not in itself make it eligible for deletion — we don't delete stubs just for being stubs — and with the sources currently listed, it's clear that the subject is notable, even to someone like me for whom chemistry is not my strong suit. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've added a citation to another book-length secondary source: the Handbook of polymer solution thermodynamics (Danner and High 1993), although I agree with ChemNerd that Teraoka alone should be enough. I suspect that an actual expert on polymer chemistry with a knack for popular exposition could turn this into a Featured Article. —Syrenka V (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2017 (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.