Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domain wall (string theory)

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 Keep. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Domain wall (string theory)

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

Obviously the three Domain wall articles should be consolidated, and then delete just the one since it has no references overcoming WP:NN MJH (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consolidating articles on widely differing physical theories merely because they all possess codimension 1 topological solitons is not obvious or recommended. That they all use the same term for a mathematical construct instead suggests a disambiguation page, and indeed there is one for the term Domain wall.

But more importantly, the topic of domain walls in string theory looks notable itself. Google Scholar shows 130 hits for "brane domain wall" and 127 hits for "domain wall brane" and per WP:GOOGLEHITS, hits in peer-reviewed publications count for something. These include peer-reviewed publications in mainstream physics journals, such as

"Standard model on a domain-wall brane?", Phys. Rev. D 77, 124038 (2008), [1]

"Cosmology and fermion confinement in a scalar-field-generated domain wall brane in five dimension", Journal of High Energy Physics Volume 2007, p.62, [2]

"Domain wall brane in squared curvature gravity", Journal of High Energy Physics June 2011, p. 135 [3]

"First-order framework and domain-wall/brane-cosmology correspondence",Physics Letters B Volume 661, Issues 2–3, 20 March 2008, Pages 179–185, [4]

"Witten domain wall" (both the Horava and Seiberg varieties) scores another 10 hits on GS. For a secondary reference, there is a review in Science that includes a discussion of brane domain walls as a model for our 3D universe:

"Brane-Worlds", Gary Gibbons, Science 7 January 2000: Vol. 287 no. 5450 pp. 49-50 [5]

All these show string theory domain walls is a notable topic on its own. As such, the article has surmountable problems and should be kept. Mark viking (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous abstracts per string physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalbug (talk • contribs) 22:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hello, I am the user who split these three articles apart in the first place. The original reason for doing so was because they were on different topics. Seeing as they were, I split them and marked them as stubs. I originally disregarded how many references there were for that article, but now that the users above have stated that there are multiple third-party references to it, I believe that the article has enough notability to remain separate of an amalgamated Domain wall. Of course, those references would have to be added, but we can get an expert on the subject matter to do that. OmnipotentArchetype0309 (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no objection to people adding references and will be happy to withdraw the nomination.---MJH (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.