Talk:Electron quadruplets

Too soon?
Too soon may apply here. I added a notability tag to open the discussion.--Srleffler (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t believe it is too soon since it is a concept/theory being developed. I do also have a question for .  In your edit, which simplified the article, you removed the universities involved in the theory/experimentation.  For notability purposes, should we add those universities back into the article?  Also since the head author, Egor, has a Wikipedia article, should we reference/wiki link him into the article as well? Elijahandskip (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it's too soon for an article depends upon the depth of reliable, independent coverage of it. The paucity of such documentation is what gives us pause here. The list of affiliations of the recent papers' authors does nothing to establish notability in the Wikipedian sense of the word. It's very possible to have a project involving people from multiple universities that is not wiki-notable; I've organized some of those myself. Authors who have articles can be linked in the reference using the author-link parameters. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on the expansion done to the stub, I am going to remove the notability tag, but I am leaving the sources tag so editors know to look for more sources. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please: never, never cite press releases from phys.org. They are hype — advertising by the universities, in all but name — not reliable sources. In addition, the expansion was text lifted from the press release with minimal modifications, basically to the point of copyright infringement, with references sprinkled in whose relevance to the topic is not clear. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well in this case, Phys.org actually has part of the history behind this theory, so it should stay as a reference. Also if it is that bad of a source, why don't you start a discussion about it on the Wikipedia Reliable Source list?  Don't take this the wrong way, but I cannot see any real reason (Wikipedia wise) to not include it as a reference.  It hasn't been deprecated yet, so in my mind, Wikipedia still considers it "reliable".  If I have the wrong idea for that, I highly encourage you to start a discussion to deprecate it, because that website publishes a ton of science information, which a lot of people read. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It publishes a ton of unvetted "information" that is not independent of the people it promotes. It's churnalism. It doesn't need to be red-listed at WP:RSP in order to fail our basic standards. And, in fact, discussion at the RS noticeboard has found it mostly unusable. Press releases are hype. Even if they include "history", they don't show that reliable, independent sources care about that history, which is the standard that history needs to pass in order to be included here. Phys.org, EurekAlert and their ilk are simply unsuitable. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, The electron quadruplet theory was first described by Leon Cooper, John Bardeen, and John Schrieffer? What? No. The entire point is that this (if confirmed) goes beyond BCS. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 05:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To echo my comment from WT:PHYS, time-reversal symmetry breaking in exotic superconductors is a pretty big topic of research (see here for a review that looks decent, and here for an observation that dates back to 1998). Maybe that's the broader setting in which this could be discussed. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)