Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haloscope (physics)

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 speedy keep‎. Per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Svartner (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haloscope (physics)

[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)

Experimental device being used to search for hypothetical particles. No results to date, so fails WP:CRYSTALBALL. Page was declined at AfC multiple times by physics reviewers, then accepted with the addition of a blog by a science journalist [1], with no rectification of the issues raised. If the devices ever detect anything then and only then should an article be on Wikipedia as there would be extensive WP:SIGCOV. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Astronomy, and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The haloscope does not need to have been successful in order to be notable. Clearly passes GNG. A cursory Google Scholar search finds several other relevant articles in reliable publications giving significant coverage of these devices. WP:CRYSTALBALL does not apply, the article does not seek to predict the future or speculate. Incidentally the article should probably be moved to Haloscope, I'm not sure why (physics) is necessary unless it was to avoid a redirect at some point. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic easily passes WP:GNG as it is discussed by the American Physical Society, the Cavendish Laboratory, Phys.org and many other reliable sources. Nom should be aware that Notability depends on the existence of sources in the world, not how well an article is written. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to strongly disagree with the above statements. If we had articles on everything that was mentioned by APS and had a few cites then we would be flooded; academics are good at getting publicity. As an example of my own, the masses of science press coverage indicates that we did a good publicity job, and that the Internet likes cats. Until the work is highly cited and widely accepted it would not merit inclusion in WP, we are a trailing indicator. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Ldm1954's point, the phys.org item is just a press release. It means nothing. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appears notable based on the quantity of papers published on the topic with respect to axions. Worse case it can be merged into Axion Dark Matter Experiment. Praemonitus (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as ldm said, academics are good at making publicity, especially those academics who spend huge amounts of public money building things that probably won't work, to look for things that might not exist. When the public come across this publicity, Wikipedia is the place they turn to for an unbiased overview of what it all means. As soon as the publicity exists, we can summarise it, even if the whole thing turns out to be a blind alley in the history of science. The inclusion of "(physics)" is probably because a naive google search finds a magazine and a skin product that will leave you glazed all day (rather similar to the effect of reading about the physics?). Elemimele (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find this rationale convincing. If there aren't good sources, then we can't write a good summary of the actual science behind the publicity. If there are good sources, then we should write a summary of the actual science whether or not there is publicity. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per comments above. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2025 (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.