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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha factor[edit]

Alpha factor (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)

This appears to be a definition of a parameter during solidification. It has no general context, does not appear to be notable and I find essentially nothing about it in a Google search. If someone wants to add context to repair it I will withdraw the nomination, but to me it does not belong on Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Jackson alpha factor is a dimensionless parameter stemming from Jackson's classical mean-field theory of crystal growth. Its value indicates whether a crystal growth interface is smooth or rough, analogous to a Reynolds number. In addition to the two books cited in the article, there are other secondary sources discussing the concept such as [1] and [2]. While it is not a hugely notable concept, it seems well-verified in secondary reliable sources and IMO passes the test for notability per WP:GNG. As part of the history of crystal growth modeling, it could have a place on Wikipedia. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Mark viking, please then include the context. As written only someone who has worked in the area will have an idea what it is for. For instance:

  • It's relevance for flat surfaces in the lead (what you say above, expanded)
  • Links to experimental verification and the other sources you mention
  • Limitations (can be brief)
  • A Figure would be good

  Currently it fails the readers first test. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Terrible math formatting, but a wiki-notable concept. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, after fixing the mathematical typesetting, which is indeed terrible, as XOR'easter said. However, it can be fixed, and I shall try to do that today. Athel cb (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have now done this. I hope I haven't screwed up any equations, and have correctly understood what the original ones meant. They look right to me. However anyone can check by comparing my versions with those of 1st April.

  Athel cb (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2024 (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.