Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selfconsistent electromagnetic constants

Selfconsistent electromagnetic constants

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Whole article is WP:SYN. Steve (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect, per nomination. There are many references, but they don't appear to refer to a group of "self-consistent electromagnetic constants". Instead, they talk about the use of individual constants. Not quite sure where this should point to. Maxwell's equations seems to have the best overlap with the article's subject matter. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you don’t like “vacuum wave impedance” proposed by Stratton (American applyied physicist), so you want to delete the article..., and you are the theorist wich used the CGS units. Note that, the term “electromagnetic constants” was used in the first part of 20-th century (see Tamm). However, even Soviet theorist Tamm considering the LC circuit should to use the SI units..., but great Tamm considered the resonance frequency only, but not “characteristic impedance”... The athours of lower scale, for example Сена Л.А. (Sena L.A.) even in late 80-ties wroute that “there are NO any WAVE VACUUM impedance”. You are with Sena, but not with delicate Tamm. Farthermore, even Zel'dovich, B.Y. (2008), one of the former Soviet talanted theorist now returns to the “characteristic impedance”...195.47.212.108 (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange to say, you Christopher Thomas are the applied phisicist engaged in the engeneering field “CMOS Image Sensors” and you don’t like electrodynamics constants in general and “characteristic impedance” partially, which are out of scop of your proffesional interest and education...195.47.212.108 (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm only an amateur scientist, but this seems to check out. At Wikipedia, there is going to have to have some degree of summarizing and synthesis in hard-core science articles like this one. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Babble that adds nothing to useful physics. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: This appears to be an attempt at a grand synthesis of concepts that are already covered in several Wikipedia articles. To the extent that verifiable statements or reliable sources in this article do not duplicate material already in other articles, they should be moved, and adapted as necessary, to the appropriate articles. However, this should not exist as a separate article in Wikipedia. Finell (Talk) 22:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original synthesis. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to be original synthesis without notability. Neither standard internet searches nor my printed reference materials indicate that this presentation of material is canonical, and it overlaps substantially with other articles which present related topics more clearly. (changed from Delete to Comment after additional investigation) Ben Kidwell (talk) 04:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]