Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fractional electrodynamics

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kevin Baas (talk | contribs) at 17:31, 11 April 2004 (charles matthews' territory.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

add to this deletion debate Just some references, no actual content. Dori | Talk 17:57, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Some of that research needs to be boiled down, before there's an encylopedia article here. Charles Matthews 18:13, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Not just references, they're all to papers by one person. -- Cyrius|&#9998 18:17, Apr 7, 2004
    • The research has been "boiled down", for instance in the book "Frontiers in Electromagnetics". The point of posting the references, even though there is yet no content to the page, is to provide access to information. With such access, people can learn. Also, they can more readily fill in the content of the page. These are some of the benefits of the current page. In what ways are these benefits counter-weighted? Kevin Baas 18:39, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, it's not an article, that's enough of a counter-weight for anything. People see the link, and it's in blue, they go there expecting to see some content, and all they get is references. If there was at least some content, the references could go in the talk page. Dori | Talk 19:17, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps once could simply put the references in the talk pages, and leave the article as stub? The link would still be in blue, admittedly. (A (very significant) drawback of this is that people won't see the references.) I don't feel myself competent enough in the subject to write a sufficiently technical introduction. Unless a brief non-formal overview would be sufficient? My contention is that the references are valuable to those interested, who perhaps might from them write said missing article. This is better than nothing, which is what you are suggesting. Kevin Baas 23:41, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Bensaccount 23:20, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete with prejudice. Mr. Baas, having presented us with fractional probability, fractional paradigm, and fractional calculus already, now attempts to hose us once more. Denni 00:01, 2004 Apr 8 (UTC)
    • Well, let's not be hasty. Fractional calculus is an established subject. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:08, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Move fractional electrodynamics to a page under User:Kevin baas. It's not clear to me that an article can be written on this topic; there appear to be exactly two people interested in it. One of them (Nader Engheta) is an academic at a reputable school (U Penn). However, if interest is limited to just a few people, it doesn't need an article here, even though it may be valid research. Maybe in a few years it will become obvious the topic deserves such treatment; WP is in no hurry. Til then I see no harm in keeping the references as a user page. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:08, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know if this comment was more positive or negative. In any case, on "people interested in it", I feel the need to clear up a few distortions here. Firstly, Nader Engheta is a highly decorated professor and an internationally respected authority on electromagnetics. He is a Guggenheim Fellow, an IEEE Third Millennium Medalist, and a Fellow of IEEE. Secondly, there are clearly many people interested in the subject, such as his students, the IEEE society, editors and readers of EE Journals, and attendants of the URSI International Symposium, to name but a few. Kevin Baas 10:15, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • All that would make it easier to explain what is going on here, no? And make it interesting? Just saying 'authority' isn't anything much. The current article is a content nullity. For example, it doesn't enable me to decide whether it might be about fractional charges, or fractional calculus applied somehow. I doubt whether the 'keep' votes here are any clearer on that than I am. Charles Matthews 11:22, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • I find it ironic that you titled your revision "Huffing and puffing." You see, most people would construe that as being derogatory to the comment it responds to, which clearly involves no "huffing and pufffing" - it simply presents the facts to those interested in this dicussion, who may have been misled by Wile's earlier comments. In contrast, your response could well be construed as "huffing and puffing". It presents no facts or logic, but is rather purely rhetorical. (Is electromagnetics about elecricity, magnetics, or an application of mathematics?) It has the tone of someone who is irritated and reacts to this irritation by "huffing and pufffing". Kevin Baas 18:02, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • The irritation is because the page is posted without even an attempt to define the topic. That makes it a classic walled garden: no one can add to or edit the page, because only you know what the topic is. Uncommented lists of references have no place here. Charles Matthews 13:23, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • So you agree with what I have said, regarding huffing and puffing, then? Strange then, that you worded this like a counter-argument. I think you could communicate better if you made a sharper distinction between topics. (btw, if you look at the page now, you will discover that it now contains a brief overview of the topic, as some people have kindly suggested.) I appreciate the fact that you have finally stated your contention. The tone, however, is quite sharp. A more "formal" tone would be more conducive. In regards to "walled garden": there are no walls. People can add to or edit the page as they so desire. The references refer to books and papers that will give them ample understanding of the topic. That's why they are there. Cheers. Kevin Baas 17:31, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, if only because I was interested in fractional calculus when I read it, and they seem to be intimately related. If interest is limited to just a few people, it might not need to be an article here. The topic isn't of regional or no interest; it's just specialized. Part of the value of Wikipedia is that he has articles on obscure and/or specialized subjects. I know I've learnt a lot from it in areas about which I doubt more than a tenth of a percent of people care. --130.39.154.50 03:18, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete (William M. Connolley 16:18, 2004 Apr 8 (UTC)) Just a list of refs. "fractional electrodynamics" gets no google hits apart from wiki. Which suggests that Electromagnetism should be cleaned up...
  • Limited interest isn't a valid reason for deletion. The fact that an article might not be "necessary" is, in part, what separates Wikipedia from Britannica. Allowing minority interests to contribute their passions gains us valuable contributors. Having said that, the current article lacks content. Revise or delete. Cribcage 18:30, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fractional_electrodynamics&oldid=3149921"