Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E(38) 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. This would be easy to close as "no consensus"; but on careful review of the opinions here, I think the advocates of deletion have the more policy-compliant arguments. The single bit of independet coverage adduced by the keep proponents—the 2012 article in GizMag—is not, by itself, enough to put the article over the notability hump. Deor (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

E(38) boson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable particle, where most of the "publications" are really arxiv preprints by a small group of people, which have been refuted by the COMPASS collaboration as generally shoddy science (see also http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/my_take_wouldbe_particle_38_mev-93256). Some arxiv preprints were even withdrawn from the arxiv. The article ontains utterly sensationalistic nonsense, like suggestion that this could be the Higgs. Even in 2012, this would have been laughable. It's even more laughable now. The alledged discovery has had some coverage in press, but that's mostly ZOMG NEW PARTICLE MAYBE IT'S THE HIGGS!? kind of coverage, more than anything actually establishing notability. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * keep and edit to show the status. If it has general press coverage, it's notable. People will see it, and come hereto find objective information.  DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There's lots of things with general press coverage. This is far removed from actually notable failures (e.h. Oops-Leon, Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly, etc...), pushed by only a very small group of people, most of whom retracted it except the "discoverers". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG and... nominator, who states that it had actual coverage in press. It thus passes WP:GNG. There's lots of things with general press coverage. - Yeah. And these things are notable per our policies and guidelines.-- cyclopia speak! 14:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:ONEEVENT/WP:LASTING/WP:DEPTH/WP:PERSISTENCE etc... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, let's see them:
 * WP:ONEEVENT is about people. Is the E(38) boson a person?
 * WP:LASTING is about events. The E(38) boson is an (hypothetical) object, not an event.
 * WP:DEPTH again, is about events. But in any case, there is plenty of deep coverage, from the arXiv preprints to articles on media online.
 * WP:PERSISTENCE is again about events, but coverage of this lasted for a good part of 2012, so persistence is met.
 * So, no issues with any of these policies here.-- cyclopia speak! 16:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not an object, it's a blip on a data curve that some people that didn't do proper analysis thought was something, but doesn't actually exist. The arxiv preprints are nothing but WP:PRIMARY sources from the "discoverers", and the "media" coverage is by far and large media outlets bringing out the sensationalism machine because the discoverers made some bunk claims about it being the Higgs, all clustered in 2 or 3 weeks following "discovery", and even there you have to look really hard to find them. Googling E38 boson yields nearly zero results except this article and mirrors thereof, and the articles of van Beveren & Rupp. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A boson -imaginary or not, real or not- is an object. The policies you cited above do not apply to objects, not even imaginary ones. They apply to people and events. To judge why media do report about this thing is not our business: our business is only to duly note that they did, and write an article accordingly. If it's a blip on a data curve that some people that didn't do proper analysis thought was something, but doesn't actually exist. -then by all means let's write that in the article. We have articles on several notable hoaxes and false discoveries, and this is probably another one. -- cyclopia speak! 10:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * DeleteThe discovery seems not established/controversial still, in the technical world; excuse the pun, the result is still too lightweight. The article could easily be merged into another article, e.g., Boson or Standard Model, where a few sentences would suffice, really.  Would justify its own article in time perhaps, if the discovery is confirmed in time - it would be a major discovery if confirmed. Bdushaw (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That something is controversial, not established or even completely rebuked has nothing to do with notability and suitability of a topic for an article. However a merge into Boson or Standard model would violate WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE, exactly for those reasons. -- cyclopia speak! 10:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is supported by 6 references, five of which are essentially by E. van Beveren, and two of those are just websites. The sixth, that disputes the result, is an informal website that is not a reliable reference.  A discovery of a particle like this would be a discovery of such magnitude that it would ordinarily appear on the front pages of the NY Times and spread like wildfire throughout the physics community.  Based on the evidence that I see, this particle will likely come to nothing; it is most likely a fiction.  So delete for now.  Bdushaw (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is most likely a fiction but this has nothing to do with notability. Unicorn is a fiction and it is notable.-- cyclopia speak! 10:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Further sources from online magazines:, . It has media coverage, notice also it is spread along months.-- cyclopia speak!  10:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The first of these links is a report on the Higgs, rather than E(38). The second is a rather dubious blog-type report on the original paper, dated two years ago shortly after it appeared.  I understand, as you say, that the thing itself is not required for notability, that the controversy can warrant an article.  But this is not a cold fusion type of situation - I do not see references that would sustain notability of even the controversy.  Within weeks of the cold fusion announcement, there were teams working to confirm the result.  With E(38), I see no report at all that anyone has worked to confirm or deny the report - its been a general shrug.  The "controversy" is not notable either (for now).  Its reported as a very low energy particle, hence it would be easy to verify - such a confirmation would have appeared right away in Phys Rev Lett, and likely garnered a Nobel Prize... Bdushaw (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoops, you are right, the first is about the Higgs, I got fooled. However, again, all the discussion about the scientific validity of this announcement is irrelevant about the notability. What matter is that it has been discussed in some sources. We don't need cold fusion-level controversy for it. -- cyclopia speak! 14:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, but we DO need an actually notable controversy. A couple of blogs posts over the time of one or two months, a retracted preprint, and 30 papers by the same authors who failed to get the hint that no one cares or believes them fails to meet the threshold of notability set by WP:N. Controversies and article on pathological science are fine, I mentioned a few above (Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly, Oops-Leon, N rays, Dean drive, polywater, etc...) which are actually notable. These had an impact on science. This controversy is someone thinking a fart is evidence of a grenade. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You mistake "notability" for "having a huge impact". That's not what notability is on WP. Notability here means that we have the minimum requirements to create an article. Notable topics do not need to be major topics. -- cyclopia speak! 09:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  15:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Why relisted? To summarize:  the three commenters above agree that the particle is a fiction, has not been supported by independent references.  The argument above is over whether there is sufficient controversy to warrant notability to support the article.  Two of us say no, the third says yes.  But the proof is in the pudding, and there are no references to support any controversy.  All three of us have looked for it, the article's editors have worked on this for two years, and there is still nothing.  The fact that there are only three commenters (and I am here only because of what seemed like a desperate plea for more comments) straining to find any references should be an indication of no notability.  We are all agreed, I believe, that E(38), if it existed, would be a MAJOR discovery, one that would turn particle physics on its ear.  Yet the silence is deafening.  Wikipedia should not have articles that lend credibility to nonsense.  I daresay that attempting to edit articles such as Standard model or Boson to insert anything about E(38) would likely be deleted in a hurry; hence this article is orphaned.  (All due respect and all manner of thanks to the Wikipedia administrators!)  Bdushaw (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. This thing doesn't exist, and there is insufficient coverage of the hypothesis to justify an article. Self-published sources on arxiv.org don't count. -- 101.117.31.220 (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete- Given that erroneous hypotheses in science are common, I think we need more than a handful of self-published and non peer-reviewed sources to distinguish this one as notable. Reyk  YO!  22:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Insufficient coverage. Most of it is self-published or blog posts. 1292simon (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2014 (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.