Deletion of Plastic deformation in solids

Comment: The article has clearly been made up substantially of material deleted from other pages as you note - but that is not a valid reason per se for deletion. ''This is one of those very few cases where  has any validity.'' Does it need extensive work? Yep. Again not a reason per se for deletion. "Already articles" would apply if the information were in those article -- the first has a very cursory treatment of plastic deformation, the second none at all. Thus this article clearly stands apart from those two cited as reasons to delete this one. Is the article ill-written as it stands? Yep. Is that, per se, a reason for deletion? Nope. Is the topic notable? Clearly yes, as it is not claimed as a reason for deletion and the putative number of cites to be properly added is huge. "One man show" is not a valid reason for deletion. Most articles up for a total of a single day are "one man shows" and this is an extraordinarily weak argument for deletion. In short, no reason properly furnished for deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: The topic is an excellent one and the treatment is well-written and sourced.  Deletion would be contrary to our |editing policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: I have grave concerns about this article.  Beyond the issues with writing style and referencing, it appears that large portions of the content constitute a |POV or content fork, an attempt by the creator to preserve content from the currently protected Glass transition article, which preserves a version he doesn't favour.  That the currently live version of Glass transition doesn't include some of this content is irrelevant: there is no claim or policy that the protected version is the final version; the article was protected in order that consensus be reached.  Some editors have argued that the creator was encouraged to create an independent article and this is that article; however it seems clear to me that the aim is to preserve Logger9's preferred content with the aim of merging it back into Glass transition at a later time, and he says as much above.  The aim of protecting Glass transition and blocking Paula was not to simply delay discussion and split the content.  It was to allow all users to discuss and gain consensus.  Creating this new article subverts that aim, fails to solve the problems at Glass transition, and constitutes disruption.  This is supported by the |relevant guideline, which states: "Wikipedia's policy is that this practice is not a legitimate way for contributors to deal with a lack of consensus."  Editors are expected to search for existing articles before creating new ones.  It seems clear that at least two extant articles deal with the subject of Plastic deformation in solids|deformation: namely Deformation (engineering) and Deformation (mechanics), and that they cover much the same content and there is currently a discussion over merging them.  The guideline is clear on the matter: '''"Regardless of whether the editor deliberately created the fork, the result is the same: the content should be merged back into the main article."'''  The question for me as the protecting/blocking admin now becomes what to do about the situation.  Since the article appears to contain both forked and non-forked material, and the |speedy deletion criteria are specific and narrow, I am deleting the forked material from this article and leaving the remainder for deletion discussion; editors may wish to reconsider their comments in light of the remaining content.  Since the |blocking policy disallows punitive blocks, I am issuing a warning to the creator of the article not to engage in future disruptive editing.  I am also unprotecting the Glass transition article one day early in the hopes that allowing users to edit it will help stimulate discussion and the reaching of consensus on that article, but I will be watching it and will happily block anyone who restarts the edit war there
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:POVFORK||WP:SPEEDY||WP:BLOCK)