Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axial Higgs boson


 * 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Axial Higgs boson

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is just bad PR from one not so significant paper that trolled for publicity. Peter Woit explains this better than I:. Anyway, just because someone publishes an abstract with a buzzword no one else uses is not a reason for a Wikipedia article. No SIGCOV here. Mvqr (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Mvqr  (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete We need fewer articles based on churnalism, not more. A new kind of excitation in a condensed-matter system might be interesting, but given that the paper announcing it was published yesterday, we have nothing to write about: there simply aren't reliable, independent, secondary sources upon which we could build an article. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Too recent. A sensible entry, based on the Woit blog entry and one of the EurekAlert releases, has been added at 2022 in science. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 16:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and, though it might be worth considering a redirect to Quantum computing? Sleddog116 (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is far from being noteworthy enough to be included in a broad article like quantum computing, and a redirect to an article that does not mention the topic would just be confusing. Moreover, the potential application to quantum computing is based, so far, on nothing but hype. QC is hot stuff these days, so everybody claims that their work is relevant to it. That's just the typical level of background noise to be expected in press releases; a discerning ear tunes it out. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep why rush to delete? The fact it has appeared on a notable physicist's critique-of-theories blog just makes it more notable, not less. The discoverers at least say they have a new phase of matter (see preprint), if that is not worth a Wikipedia article I don't know what is. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Cause there are no peer-reviewed sources for it. I doubt you'll find coverage of this elsewhere, bit outside of the mainstream media. Perhaps draftify for 6 mths to see what happens with the idea. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia articles should be based on the scientific community's evaluation of a discovery, not the maximally-dramatic language of the original authors. That evaluation simply hasn't happened yet. ("New phase of matter" sounds impressive, "new quasiparticle" less so, and the community might well settle on the latter, for example.) The preprint, arXiv:2112.02454, has been available since last December and hasn't even been cited by another preprint yet. That's months of other scientists not caring. Really dramatic ideas get attention before the formal peer review. Every "news" source offered so far fails the "get a quote from someone not involved in the original study" scratch test. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTNEWS. The churnalism hype doesn't count as secondary-source in-depth independent coverage, necessary for WP:GNG. Woit's coverage may count, but as a blog post its reliability is dubious. Anyway, if we based our coverage on Woit we'd have a story about an academic scandal of false hype rather than about particle physics, and stories about scandals require significantly better sourcing and evidence of lasting interest, not possible for such a new event. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS/WP:PROMOTION. This is about a particular excitation ("quasiparticle") in a class of condensed-matter systems, not some new fundamental particle. At this stage, the perceived hype about this is largely based on some crafty PR from the authors (no idea how the abstract intro made it past the reviewers and Nature editor), as well as some misguided university press release that would cause me to be embarassed had I been the PI for this. If this turns out to be widely used terminology in a whole subfield of condensed-matter physics some time down the road, a page could be added – so far it isn't, "axial Higgs boson" only gets 25 hits on Google Scholar –, but even then, the terminology might more appropriately introduced on a page describing the model(s) in which the quasiparticle appears. --Clickingban (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per numerous good reasons above. This is not recognized by the scientific community so we have no realiable sources to base an article on. --mikeu talk 02:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify I am not a deletionist by nature and I don't think churnalism/PR by itself is a good reason for deleting things, give it some time to pick itself up off the floor rather than outright deletion. Selfstudier (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Mqvr, XOR'easter, David Eppstein, and Clickingban. I would add that two recent comments at Peter Woit's blog, referring to one of the publicly available referee reports, suggest that the terminology "Higgs" for this particular phenomenon is controversial among experts in condensed matter physics. The Higgs mechanism was, of course, first recognized in condensed matter physics, and subsequently became crucial in high energy physics, but the use of the term for this particular condensed matter system may be a stretch or even an outright misuse. I don't see how Wikipedia can provide balanced coverage of the issues at this stage. Even if these issues eventually do get ironed out, a brief mention in a relevant place would be more appropriate that a standalone article. Will Orrick (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note for participants reviewing RS coverage: it should be noted that this revision has several sources that have been deleted during the deletion debate. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * All of which were thinly recycled PR. For example, HPC Wire just echoes this press release. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete – This amounts to the publication of a single paper on some phenomenon, without secondary coverage reviewing the topic content. I concur with many of the good arguments above.  172.82.47.49 (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it a noteworthy experiment. It is a condensed matter experiment, with what some may consider as written in the language of High Energy Physics. I'll read the paper again, and may add text that bridges the language barrier and makes some clarifications (if Wikipedia is happy with that I would appreciate an advice). But I strongly recommend to keep it and amplify it significantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharam Vir Ahluwalia (talk • contribs) 08:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My advice would be not to do that. Clarification would, of course, be welcome in this discussion. But unless content is based on in-depth, reliable, secondary sources, it cannot be included in mainspace articles. At any rate the article Higgs mechanism already contains detailed discussion of the connection between the condensed matter application and the high energy application of the theory. Will Orrick (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS. If the author wants to work on this material in draftspace, I would not be opposed to that. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Rename as Axial Higgs mode, the particle correct name. Dr. Loo Talk to me 22:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not a particle, some misleading PR and a bad abstract made allusions to it being a particle.-- Mvqr (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me that calling it a particle is wrong. Wikipedia's quasiparticle article begins, "In physics, quasiparticles and collective excitations are closely related emergent phenomena arising when a microscopically complicated system such as a solid behaves as if it contained different weakly interacting particles in vacuum." I don't understand enough about this particular measurement to say whether it's fair to call what they've measured a particle or not. Certainly it's not a particle of high-energy physics, which some articles in the press misleadingly suggested. It's also true that the paper in Nature never uses the term "axial Higgs boson", but always uses "axial Higgs mode". A Google Scholar search turns up a couple dozen references to "axial Higgs boson" from the 1990s and early 2000s, all in the context of high-energy physics, but the Nature paper doesn't refer to any of that literature. On the other hand, I haven't been able to find a single reference to "axial Higgs mode" outside of the Nature paper and the press surrounding it. Will Orrick (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Definitely WP:TOOSOON. PianoDan (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.