Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infraparticle

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 no consensus. No consensus to delete though a big clean-up would be welcomed here. JForget 18:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've reduced the article to a stub version following concerns in the AFD and on my talk page. Basically just the first paragraph remains with the OR/unsourced bits removed. But the article entry still exists so users can rebuild it properly--JForget 20:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infraparticle

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

No references, reads like WP:OR, uses lots "if we assume, then...". AKA reads like OR, smells like OR and probably is OR. Subject itself is notable (as evidenced by a google search), but I have a hard time connecting what's in the article with what I find on google. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, non-speedyable articles about notable subjects are only deleted when their condition is so abysmal that it would be more efficient to delete them and rewrite completely. To bring an article about a notable subject in quantum physics concerning which an acceptable article could be written to AFD on the grounds of original research is inappropriate, since the determination of whether the article should be deleted requires considerable expertise which most editors participating in the discussion will lack. (By contrast, if a quantum physics article were nominated for deletion on the basis of a claim that its topic constituted original research, the matter could easily be resolved by reference to whether WP:RS for the subject matter existed.) Andrea105 (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Of course, if an article about a notable subject does constitute original research, it's always acceptable to rewrite it, even if the text requires considerable trimming as a result. This is not considered as drastic an action as page deletion, since the previous, putatively OR version is still available in the page history, in case the determination of original research proves to be incorrect... Andrea105 (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- !vote from indef-blocked sockpuppet of banned user John254 (talk · contribs) struck. Tim Song (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This in fact reads like the complete opposite of original research, but rather like a misguided attempt to present previous research on the subject in an unencyclopedic style. The Google Scholar search linked above shows that the subject has been the coverage of much previous research starting with this 1963 paper. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is an unreadable piece of garbage, however, no doubt exists about the notability of the topic. The article requires a clean-up tag and rewriting. No valid reason for deletion exists. There is a good basic review of the topic here (PDF file) that could help. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in the meantime, there's nothing in this article that can be salvaged. I can't rewrite it, and currently this is a negative value article; it is more harmful than good, and it's a lot more difficult to rewrite than delete so someone can start from scratch. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong article. You're right. It's unfortunately not salvageable. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can probably stubify it later on this week, but no time now. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? GScholar generates lots of hits on the term, but it isn't the least bit obvious that any of them have anyhting to do with whatever is being talked about here. At the very least this requires expert attention and a complete rewrite. Mangoe (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article. Much of it reads at best as OR at worst as pseudoscience. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
You can actually understand it? Infraparticles are not pseudoscience, it's just another name for a fundamental concept in quantum physics. I don't see how you can get OR or pseudoscience out of this, but, since you know the subject at that level, can you just stubify it or create the redirect? Voting to delete encyclopedic topics due to the articles being bad, even when this bad, does not serve the purposes of an encyclopedia as well as stubifying or creating a usable redirect. Please take up the task. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow User:XXanthipped to stubify the article or redirect it. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2009 (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.