Talk:2319 aluminium alloy

Deletion discussion

Keep. Searching for Aluminum 2319 produces pages and pages of links about this alloy, thereby establishing notability, in my opinion. Pianotech 11:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the PROD since you've challenged it; PRODs are only for uncontroversial deletion. This may well be taken to AfD though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion; will AFD. Best, Pianotech 11:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Examples of academic sources are [1], [2] (and refs therein).--Cyclopia^talk 12:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of meeting WP:GNG, I think there's a good case for AfD here per WP:IINFO: why do a group of alloys of very specific composition deserve an article each; why not just put them all in a single article? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point. A larger article inclusive of AA 2319 and an accompanying redirect. Pianotech 13:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You are talking of a merge/redirect (and I can agree), which is obviously not a reason to delete anything, therefore not a good reason to go to AfD. --Cyclopia^talk 14:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That's true. It'll be worth proposing a merge though, I think. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It was late and I was tired last night when I placed that PROD tag. I have since browsed some of the other aluminum alloy articles and I would now would be agreeable to either a keep or merge. Safiel (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The thing with merging is that there doesn't exist a framework of articles that would contain it very well. There are currently a number of haphazardly-created articles about specific alloys, and a main article for all aluminium alloys, but no real structure or logical hierarchy to determine the best place. I'd say we ought to follow the lead of the Wikipedian biologists and organic chemists—an alloy is somewhere between a species and a compound in terms of conceptual complexity, and those are typically the most granular article topics in those disciplines (on Wikipedia). I'd also avoid trying to make a decision based on this (relatively minor) alloy, because I think you'll rapidly find that it will become unmanageable if we redirect and merge individual alloys to a central location—so much so, that the inevitable result will be to split it back up in summary style again. TheFeds 06:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this the same of 2139-T8

When I looked for sources I overlooked a detail. The article says the alloy contains Cu, Si, Fe, Mn, Mg, Zn, V, Zr, Be. Sources I found are about 2139-T8, which is said to be "based on an Al–Cu–Mg–Ag system". Notice the lack of Ag in the alloy cited in the article. I suspect I led people to fall with me in a WP:FRANKIE trap. Apologies for my carelessness. Can anyone find material on the AA 2139 , confirm that they're two different alloys or what? --Cyclopia^talk 23:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this too, and was trying to figure out what was going on. I think it's as simple as confusing 2319 with 2139 (both are valid alloys). I've got sources for 2319 being used in welding rods and 2139 being used in armour. TheFeds 03:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm Oh god, I can't believe I mixed 2139 with 2319 -repeatidly. Sigh, and I even wasn't drunk! Sorry for my stupidity. --Cyclopia^talk 03:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)