Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Condosity

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. Nomination rationale has been clearly rebutted by Nick Moyes. A Train^talk 13:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Condosity

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

1) No sources 2) cannot find reliable secondary/tertiary sources on this subject suggesting it isn't that important 3) Wikipedia is not a dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilxFish (talk • contribs) 09:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's certainly an established term - plenty of articles on Scholar use it [1], and there's extended definitions in textbooks [2]. Whether that's enough for an article, I don't know. If not, merge to electrical conductance? At least some sort of definition (maybe in that article) would be good. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've address both long-standing flags for no sources and no links (orphan). I've also managed to find and insert quite a range of independent WP:RS to show this term is in use across a number of scientific research fields. I'd never heard of it before, but that's no reason for deletion. Nor would WP:NOTDICT apply any more, as this article has now been expanded sufficiently to being more than a mere definition. Note to nom: do remember to sign your AfDs in future, please. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I do normally sign my comments, must have just slipped my mind. Thank you for expanding on it I couldn't find any good secondary sources when I tried. EvilxFish (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2018 (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.