Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantumphasetransition

Either this is a real term presented poorly or it's the greatest piece of quackery I've ever seen here. Is there a physicist in the house? - Lucky 6.9 18:38, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

From what (little) physics I know I can't find any inaccuracies. I think it would be more appropriate to list this at Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention. I have listed it there. Thue 18:56, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Real term poorly presented. Move to Clean-up. I'll try if/when I can find my old textbooks. Rossami 20:59, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
"Quantum phase transition" gets over 7000 google hits. Clicking on a few google hits suggest that the page isn't blatent nonsense. I don't know enough of quantum physics to know how accurate the information is - but since I lack the knowledge to judge the accuracy, I won't vote for delete. Abigail 21:04, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Real phenomenon. Not a good VfD listing IMO, we should be listing and voting on things we do know something about (as others have said more gently). There are other places for asking questions. As Wikipedia grows this becomes more and more important. Andrewa 21:09, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
In either case it doesn't belong on VfD. If it is a real term presented poorly, it is still clearly a encyclopedic topic and doesn't belong on VfD. On the other hand, if the person who posted the VfD request doesn't understand the topic well enough to determine if it is "quackery", it doesn't belong on VfD. Keep. ElBenevolente 21:16, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfectly OK with me. It's not that I didn't understand the topic. It was so badly written that I simply couldn't comprehend what I was reading. There was a patently nonsensical article here last week that was couched in pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. I wasn't certain if this was the same sort of thing, hence my electing to bring it here. It's already on "pages needing attention," so by all means, keep. And let's try and keep the personal attacks to a minimum, OK? - Lucky 6.9 21:34, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Mikkalai has revised the article. It's certainly more readable now, anyway. Average Earthman 17:48, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]