Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravitational coupling constant

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. Feel free to create a redirect from this page title to an appropriate target. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitational coupling constant

[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)

This article fails notability: the non-notable phrase "gravitational coupling constant" has no notable or authoritative definition, and is rarely used but has conflicting uses where it does occur (including for the Einstein gravitational constant or the Newtonian constant of gravitation). The meaning used in this article was rarely used by isolated science writers/popularizers, and was largely popularized from there by Wikipedia itself. —Quondum 18:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - substantial coverage in numerous independent, secondary sources. Although the name is ambiguous, it is referred to as "Gravitational coupling constant" in sources. ProofRobust 20:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the "independent secondary sources" that you claim serve as notable coverage. —Quondum 20:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To name a few:

- The Gravitational Constant: Generalized Gravitational Theories and Experiments

- Calculations and Interpretations of The Fundamental Constants

- Beyond Coincidence

ProofRobust 21:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At most one of those (the first) is a reliable source, and as an item in a collection of conference proceedings, it is the lowest tier of physics publication. Merely plucking items out of a Google Books search for a string of words is not the way to write a physics article. XOR'easter (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first, being a paper proposing a form of modified gravity, is a primary source (I'd take note if someone respectable like Frank Wilczek used it, but he seems to have used the term to mean G). The other two sources here are self-published. Finding reliable secondary sources is challenging (I've searched several times before and failed). —Quondum 00:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete would be my first choice — this is a pile of synthesis that basically admits as much (α_G is seldom mentioned in the physics literature, etc.). Moreover, all of the text is about a highly nonstandard definition; on the infrequent occasions when actual physics papers use the term, they mean $G$ or $8\pi G/c^{4}$ or something proportional to ${\sqrt {G}}$ . We could potentially have a "the term gravitational coupling constant may refer to any of the following" kind of page, but that would require blowing up this article and starting over, and I question the need for it anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient evidence of notability as a concept. PianoDan (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in a field subject to as much research as this one, obscure concepts like this don't deserve their own Wikipedia articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Universal Gravitational Constant It is clear from the discussion above that the term refers to something in literature - it's just not clear what its refers to, out of the plethora of possible physical quantities relating to gravitation. Someone searching for the term could probably find relevant information in the article for G anyways. Fermiboson (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Universal Gravitational Constant is already a redirect, so we shouldn't redirect to it, and if there isn't a single established meaning, we can't establish one ourselves. XOR'easter (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that all the possible meanings relate to G, though. Fermiboson (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively back to Gravitational constant. It's a thing but there is so little information in secondary sources, but let's keep the information and redirect link, because our core readership (students) might search for this exact term. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because the term is so peripheral, including it in gravitational constant risks being undue at best, and we shouldn't preserve synthesis by merging it into another page. I think that a properly selective merge would end up carrying over no content at all. XOR'easter (talk) 15:55, 22 November 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.