Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Total refraction

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 redirect‎ to Negative refraction. (non-admin closure) Thomasfan1916 (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Total refraction

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Total refraction (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 seemingly reasonable at first glance, this just isn't a topic.

First, none of the sources given talk of total refraction, only total internal reflection. A 2002 source is mentionned, which I've tracked to be doi:10.1364/OL.27.000815, but 'total refraction' is only found in the abstract, and in the body it's 'total reflection', indicating a typo/mistake.

There are minor instance of 'total refraction' being found in literature, but it's simple impedance matching (optics) leading to no reflection at the interface, leading to what most people would call total transmission, but some call total refraction.

While a previous version of the article made more sense (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Total_refraction&oldid=54441257), this just isn't a topic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Negative refraction. Current content of the total refraction article is completely worthless. ZhangThis review discusses the minor topic "total refraction" in the context of "negative refraction": Zhang, Y., & Mascarenhas, A. (2005). Total and negative refraction of electromagnetic waves. Modern Physics Letters B, 19(01n02), 21-33. The sources that use the term "total refraction" seem to be by these authors, but "negative refraction" is more widely used.

Johnjbarton (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

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.