Talk:Wilson fermion

Number and type of references required
After the article had been declined for the first time, I have added more references so that there are now 4 published and reviewed books. In my understanding all of them meet all the required criteria being in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent. I would be very thankful for more specific feedback as to how many more references would be required or whether the type of references provided should be changed. Armer Thor (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I must concur with Armer Thor; as someone who worked on lattice field theory, Wilson fermions are a very important topic, as important as staggered fermions. The original paper has some 2.8k citations which is pretty astounding by physics standards, showing the impact of these fermions in the lattice field theory community. The article currently provides sufficient reliable sources to support this: Smit, Montvey and Gattringer are some of the classic lattice field theory textbooks, each of which covers this topic in great depth (not to mention that they are secondary, reliable, and independent). So I really do not see how the current draft fails on this account. OpenScience709 (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because it plainly does not meet the criterion of being patent nonsense. It is stubby, agreed. However, it provides the basic definition and the most important literature references for a topic highly important in lattice QCD, a central part of modern theoretical physics. Wilson fermions are similarly if not more relevant than staggered fermions and domain wall fermions. The latter page has been viewed 96 times since I created it four months ago, so people are definitely interested in lattice fermion discretisation methods.Armer Thor (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)