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 speedily deleted as copyvio by Jimfbleak. Some of the comments below seem to indicate that the reason for the speedy deletion may be objected to. Discussion with Jimfbleak may be called for, perhaps with escalation to WP:DRV if the result of such discussion is thought to be unsatisfactory. Deor (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thermotunnel cooling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

While cooling by tunneling effects could be a thing is still very early to say WP:TOOSOON . The term thermotunnel does not offer many results in Scholar. Additionally, all equations and most of the terminology of this article are taken from a single paper. ReyHahn (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. ReyHahn (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes WP:GNG based on the (WP:AGF) sources in the article and what google throws up. This is also known as thermotunneling and thermotunnel refrigeration and there are many more sources that can be be found using these search terms. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I counted two pages of Google Scholar on thermotunneling with barely cited articles. --ReyHahn (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll second this. Saying that Google spit up a bunch of "results" is not what WP:GNG is. I still have a look a bit, but I'm just not seeing secondary sources that really summarize this for us, just a bunch of primaries so far. KoA (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge because the content is encyclopedic but, per above, I'm not sure the topic merits its own article due to WP:TOOSOON. I lack the expertise to determine where it should be merged to, though. Another issue on the current article is it doesn't seem to indicate if/whether this phenomenon is proposed/hypothesized, or whether it's well-demonstrated and accepted by the scientific community in this area. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think since the name is a bit long and the article lead uses thermotunneling, I would move to thermotunneling or thermotunnel. But that's a separate discussion. As far as secondary sources:
  • the Brown 2010 source in the article seems the best notability source, it has a detailed 3-4 paragraph description.
  • [1] from 2014 has a sentence description. It also says "This technology is in the early stages of R&D, and the authors were unable to identify any prototypes or demonstrations beyond basic materials research." This source also includes thermotunneling in several graphs and tables comparing cooling solutions.
  • [2] has 4 sentences
  • [3] has a paragraph description.
  • [4] from 2022 has a 10 sentence description.

I think this is sufficient to show notability per GNG - thermotunneling comes up often as a distinct entry in listings of cooling techniques, and these are all reliable independent sources. Admittedly the coverage besides the Brown source is a bit lacking (although still enough for a stub). The issue seems to be that nobody has a prototype that actually cools, and its predicted efficiency is comparable to vapor cooling so it is not a research priority. If this article was going to be merged I would say Cooling - that article is just a list now but should be expanded into summary-style, and then it could list all the other proposed cooling techniques. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - The whole article is a copyvio of [5], made by the WP:SPA Tombistolas. Tercer (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as copyvio. If there's a topic that warrants an article here, and an editor willing to do the work, it would have to be rewritten from scratch anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Mathnerd314159. Since the article existed long before copyright violations were introduced, copyvio is grounds for reversion, not deletion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Copyvio removed, evidence of notability not rebutted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: as this this about a physics topic, I am teh WP:CIR about the substantive issue of notability. As for the assertion that it is a copyright violation of a page on a website that will write your term essay for you, it would appear to me they had scraped the November 2005 version of this article Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2022 (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.