Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fractional electrodynamics
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|✎ 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)
- But it doesn't provide access. How can a non-IEEE member view them? Niteowlneils 14:28, 12 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)
- Delete or 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) (Page deletion is also OK with me. Updated vote. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:47, 12 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)
- By my count, you have now added: one non sequitur, one new undefined term (fractional differential geometry), and three red links. There is no reason that any theory on fractals must use fractional calculus; the fact that you assert this reinforces the impression that you munge similar-sounding concepts together fairly randomly. Charles Matthews 18:33, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- That's quite a bloated inference there. It seems that you're not a fan of the Minimum description length. If you actually think I confuse terms that start with the same letter, you should be wondering how I can speak in complete sentences. Fractional calculus enables one to take integrals (and do calculus) over fractal regions. Although this is not always neccessary in the study of fractals, it becomes neccessary as soon as you deal with the dynamics of fractal entities, inasmuch as current theories of dynamics are based on calculus.
- In regards to fractional differential geometry, you will notice that I did not make a link of that phrase, but I gave two references. I am sure that anyone who knows what differential geometry and fractional calculus are can put the two together into a meaningful picture of "fractional differential geometry". The two references are there to elucidate this idea. They include such things as fractional differential forms, fractional exterior derivatives, and a fractional curl operator, among others differential geometric constructions. Mathematicians will quickly recognize these concepts and possibly appreciate their generalization to fractal dimensional spaces. This topic is actually born from the research of at least five mathematicians. (The two not mentioned are Oldham and Spanier.) However, I don't think it meets the threshold, which is why I did not make it a link.
- In the future, please refrain from criticizing what you don't understand. And please, stop filling this page with your anger. It is not helpfull to anyone here. Kevin Baas 22:28, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Kevin, you are quite wrong to say anyone who knows what differential geometry and fractional calculus are can put the two together into a meaningful picture of "fractional differential geometry". That is demonstrably not the case. You also are confusing fractional calculus with measure theory on fractals: completely different topics. This is misleading, to say the least. You would do everyone a favour, including yourself, if you admitted that your posting was premature, and that you are not elucidating anything by carrying on postulating fractional differential forms etc.. etc. . The criterion here is quite clear: exposition of encyclopedic material, no current research. I am calling you out on this, because Wikipedia articles go round the world, and should not contain disinformation. Charles Matthews 05:45, 12 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 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)
- 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)
- Delete. Inclusion would set too low a threshold for inclusion of scientific theories into WP, to the point where fleshing out such articles would encroach too much into the realm of original research. If this were included, anything with a few papers behind it would become fair game for inclusion. Certainly the threshold in this matter is debatable, but I feel this one fails the test, based on its newness, its non-notoreity, and its near complete association with a single investigator. -- Decumanus | Talk 19:44, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Given that I haven't actually voted... delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:50, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Lean towards delete. Possibly valid topic, but all refs are by a single author. Also, no Web refs. Plus, may be copyvio[1]. Niteowlneils 14:27, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- If we keep, we may see this [2] (found via search for the top subject paper "On Fractional Calculus and Fractional Multipoles in Electromagnetism") as an "article". Niteowlneils 14:27, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Note (prompted by that) that we already have a fractal antenna article. Charles Matthews 16:12, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- If we keep, we may see this [2] (found via search for the top subject paper "On Fractional Calculus and Fractional Multipoles in Electromagnetism") as an "article". Niteowlneils 14:27, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)