Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism

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 delete. ✗plicit 14:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism

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

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

As noted by Tercer, the article is a violation WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. The subject is based on an obscure references like [1] and fringe references like [2]. The topic has some historical relevance but the content of the article as of now is not salvageable and does not seem adequate for a merge. ReyHahn (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ReyHahn (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just showing the steps of a proof but doesn't actually explain anything in an encyclopedic format. Reywas92^Talk 14:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think the subject is notable enough for a standalone article. In any case, the poor sourcing the article currently has does not demonstrate notability. The fact that classical electromagnetism is not invariant under Galilean transformations is relevant, but should be noted in context, for example as a remark in Classical electromagnetism and special relativity or History of special relativity. As for a merge, there's no content worth merging. Tercer (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic is not sufficiently noteworthy or sufficiently separate from other topics to warrant a stand-alone page, and the material is not good enough to preserve via merging, nor is the title a likely search query that would make a redirect worthwhile. XOR'easter (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The topic is nothing but a badly worked WP:TEXTBOOK exercise to show that Galilean transforms are incompatible with Maxwell's equations. We don't generally include counterfactuals in WP. Also unsuitable as a redirect as per XOR'easter. I also fully endorse Tercer's perspective. —Quondum 19:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
note for closer: please delete the redirect Non invariance of maxwell's equation under Galilean transformation too. —Quondum 22:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, and this subject is better covered by articles on the history of special relativity. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2022 (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.