Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation

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 merge‎ to Dynamical mean-field theory. Owen× ☎ 13:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation

[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)

Page probably created by students in the group of the originator of the algorithm. All relevant refs to the method are from one group, there are no secondary sources. It should be trimmed down to a paragraph or two and merged into Dynamical mean-field theory since it is a variant of that very well established and used approach. We should not have separate articles on every minor DFT variant IMO. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect per nom. Likely COI issue. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ldm1954: The TMDCA is a well established method that warrants a page of it's own. It introduces both spatial correlations and order parameter that is currently not available in any mean-field theory, including the dynamical mean field theory. It is just as saying that the page for the

Coherent Potential Approximation and dynamical mean-field theory should be merged. Both these two approximations are exactly the same at the thermodynamical limit, but focused on different aspects of the physics. I respectfully disagree with the notion of merging them and do not support it. SrihariKastuar (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — SrihariKastuar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Ldm1954: Both the DMFT and TMDCA are robust approximations that address some of the most challenging problems in condensed matter physics, and they truly merit recognition. Regarding the citations, they're not limited to just one group. In fact, there are seven additional citations from various other groups. As you might be aware, it's common for the initial citations of a method in physics and in science in general to have the imprint of the developer, much like what you see with the DMFT citation, for example, where 95% of the current citations on its page are from the original group. CEE (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954: just to add every human being, including yourself has some level of COI. While I have never used the TMDCA before, I am a science enthusiast who appreciates the hard work and dedication of people to solving scientific problems. Please, let's move past this to focus on other things. SrihariKastuar (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what COI means here. XOR'easter (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Click both link and just write the TMDca approach is very good tools to understand the ground state properties etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.253.44 (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — This comment was transferred from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinedu Ekuma where it was misplaced; I offer no comment as to its value, nor do I have my own opinion or comment on this nomination. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would really help if the page author identified the three best sources, i.e., three peer-reviewed publications that provide in-depth discussion of the technique but were not written by its original inventors. XOR'easter (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XOR'easter: thanks for the clarifications. There are over 100 combined independent citations using one form of the typical medium or the other. I will list some of them below in no particular order:

1. https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.90.025003 - Nice review of modern physics discussing the importance of nonlocal correlations

2. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.036602

3. https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.92.063621

4. https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.109.094203

5. https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.106.214205

6. https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.104.165102 CEE (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said three, not six.
The problem is that we are all volunteers here, and volunteer time is a scarce resource — even more so for specialized, technical topics. What we are trying to evaluate here is, first, whether this subject is more than the pet project of a single research group, and second, if so, whether giving it a whole page to itself is organizationally the best move. Plenty of worthy ideas pass the first but fail the second! It can make more sense to describe a technique in the larger article on the older technique of which it is a variant, or in the article on the phenomenon it was invented to analyze, etc. If there were a Rev. Mod. Phys. article that was straight-up titled "Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation", that would be a pretty strong argument for having a page here. On the other hand, if all the review article says on the subject is a mention to the effect that densities of states and critical disorder strengths can be obtained through cluster extensions of these theories (Jarrell and Krishnamurthy, 2001; Ekuma et al., 2014; Terletska et al., 2014), that's not good evidence the topic needs its own article here.
I have written an introductory guide for physicists trying to contribute to Wikipedia that may be helpful. XOR'easter (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
XOR'easter (talk) Thanks for the edits and comments, and for overwhelming you with many references. Manuscript titles in physics generally don't follow such nomenclature for being straight up titled "Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation".

There is actually a review of modern physics on this, which is already cited, see for example:

1. https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.77.1027.

2. See also Annals of physics, which is generally a semi-review journal at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003491621000865 CEE (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That RMP article is from 2005; I'm pretty sure it can't support the existence of a page here about a technique introduced in 2014. References about the general topic area can be used as background for an article on a more specific concept, but we need in-depth coverage of the specific concept itself.
The Annals of Physics paper seems to have only a brief mention of TMDCA specifically. It also has authors in common with the Phys. Rev. B paper that introduced TMDCA, so it's not really an independent source. XOR'easter (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TMDCA is really important for understanding how materials behave when they have strong internal interactions and some disorder. It's like studying a single piece of a big, complicated machine to understand how the entire machine works. This method gives a much clearer view of these complex systems than previous approaches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faustina Tiara (talk • contribs) 05:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC) — Faustina Tiara (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
At the risk of sounding stuffily bureaucratic, that argument is not grounded in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. We can't go by your opinion that TMDCA is important; we need evidence more solid than that. XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The TMDCA methodology has practical implications, as evidenced by its success in explaining experimental observations in materials like MoS2, PbSe, and PbTe. Given its unique contributions and the ongoing research it inspires, the TMDCA holds substantial academic value and should be preserved for its educational and scientific merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilson Sunday E (talk • contribs) 05:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC) — Wilson Sunday E (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep TMDCA looks an interesting approach in computational materials science. It deals with understanding the ground-state properties of many-body strongly correlated electrons, which are usually not considered in other approximations. For further understanding of the theory and concept of TMDCA approach it is good to refer to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dprai1985 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC) — Dprai1985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. See also the related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinedu Ekuma on a biography by the same cluster of editors on an author of many of the references of this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As both the nominator and one of the grey-haired solid-state academics who have reviewed this, let me add some context to try and explain a bit more about why I nominated this. My apologies in advance for jargonese and being a bit technical.
- This is Wikipedia, we don't include everything, WP:NOT. We summarize key information, we are not a textbook.
- Balance is needed. For instance Hybrid functional has one concise page within which both B3LYP and PBE0 only have one paragraph each. There are many tens of thousands of papers where those have been used, in my opinion one paragraph is appropriate.
- The article Density functional theory is longer, and similarly is not excessive on anything. The only mention of GGA is an internal link within this article to Density functional theory#Approximations (exchange–correlation functionals). Again, the number of publications is vast.
- Codes such as VASP or WIEN2k have modest pages, see also the software list.
- The community has already made some key choices about the main topics, see Template:Electronic structure methods. I am reluctant to bloat this.

Hopefully nobody will try and claim comparable notability to any of the above for this approach. It merits mention, but merged into one of the existing large branches of ab-initio methods not as a separate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect. This is way too niche for a standalone article, it merited a single sentence in the RMP review. The only reason there exists an extensive article about it here is COI, as indicated by the WP:SPA army. Tercer (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tercer (talk) I respectfully disagree with your perspective. It seems we may be encountering a situation of selective emphasis. As indicated by the title, the focus was intended to cover various approaches, not just one. There are numerous review articles on this topic, and the one you've referenced is only one among many. For instance, consider this dedicated article, which might offer a more comprehensive view on the approach: https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.77.1027. gmp001 (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mystified about how a review from 2005 could possibly be relevant for a technique invented in 2014. Tercer (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. After the discussion here and doing a literature search on my own, I agree with the comment just above. At present, the sourcing just doesn't support having a dedicated article. The state of the field would be better represented by a broader article that discusses the various techniques that have been developed, giving some time to each and making it easier to compare and contrast them, rather than delving into the details almost to the point of writing pseudocode. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2024 (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.