Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Event symmetry


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Event symmetry

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Per Talk:Event symmetry, this is an incoherent WP:SYNTH of unrelated topics that is overwhelmingly background information and does not clearly or accurately explain what this topic is. Summary:
 * Nonsense that is mostly background information and gives a nonsensical conclusion that the equations governing the laws of physics must be unchanged when transformed by any permutation of spacetime events — which means that all scalar fields are uniform. Uses a soap bubble analogy in an unencyclopedic manner and ends by making an OR connection between the article topic and John Stachel's proposed principle of maximal permutability that equivalent objects of the same kind are exchangeable.
 * A non-notable fringe theory of quantum gravity, which is cited entirely to primary sources, along with similarly non-notable theories absed on random graphs.
 * A poorly explained notion of diffeomorphism invariance applied to a matrix model of M-theory. This section incorrectly juxtaposes D0-branes, instantons, and events.
 * A misinterpretation of something in a sci-fi novel Permutation City. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 18:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 18:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d  c̄ ) 18:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NFT. Badly-sourced mishmash of badly-understood physics. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There are numerous references from peer-reviewed journals by respected physicists. How exactly is it badly-sourced and badly-understood? Weburbia (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There are numerous paragraphs entirely without sources. And sources providing background information or otherwise failing to back up the actual content of the article do not count towards the notability of its topic, no matter how respected their authors might be. As for badly-understood, the nominator's discussion of the trivializing consequences of symmetry under all permutations and of Permutation City will suffice for two examples. I have read that novel and did not recognize its content from its description here (the paragraph about it in Garden of Eden (cellular automaton) is much more apropos and, unlike here, properly sourced to non-fiction sources). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Some people are confused about the role of symmetry in physics and try to apply the symmetry principle to the solutions rather than the equations. They then come to nonsense conclusions such as "scalar fields are uniform". Obviously physicists would not be using symmetry principles if their consequences were that trivial. The relationship between the ideas of event symmetry and Greg Egan's dust theory from "permutation symmetry" were first pointed out to me by John Baez on sci.physics.research. Of course Egan uses the idea in different fictional and philosophical ways more related to mind uploading and the simulation hypothesis but his description of the physics principle is perfectly clear and directly related to this topic. He has a very good understanding of physics and mathematics and has published papers on quantum gravity so I dont doubt that he knew what he was talking about. Weburbia (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't write articles based on chatter on Usenet, and we certainly don't use Usenet chatter as a springboard to justify speculation and invention. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We aren't. We are using the references cited. Weburbia (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Large passages of text uncited, not written in an encyclopedic tone, doesn't demonstrate the notability of the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is full of pages which are labelled as stubs needing expansion, yet when I write an article with more detail and explanation it is called uncyclopedic. The "large passages" of explanation are covered in the cited sources. Weburbia (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete My PROD rationale was With the original publication getting only 11 citations in 25 years, even by the permissive standards of Google Scholar (counting unpublished items and self-citations), this is not a notable physics idea. WP:SYNTH throughout. I thought at the time that that was an understatement; the nomination goes into more detail. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I dont agree that it is synthesis. I think What SYNTH is not applies here. Weburbia (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. The combination of ideas that other, reliable sources have not yet combined = synthesis. And the notability and COI problems remain regardless. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH applies here. Weburbia (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Tercer (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete – fails WP:GNG —Quondum 16:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate? There are many references from reliable sources. If people prefer coverage in popular science press that can be found too, especially for the quantum graphity example. Weburbia (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Only the first reference covers the topic, and that is a primary source, one which (having obtained a copy) only very sketchily covers it. There is nothing to indicate that the quantum graphity example preserves any "rules" under a general permutation of events, or that any sources claim that it does. Hence, such sources cannot be regarded as covering the topic.  Given that you are, you are putting a lot of energy into arguing for its retention.  —Quondum 17:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going to argue against the deletion but I think its important to fix some of the factual errors in the rationale and comments, especially about the physics. It shouldn't be deleted for wrong reasons. Weburbia (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, as editors we all fall into the trap of arguing the physics from time to time. Criteria for whether a topic should be in WP centre on verifiability and not on the beliefs of the editors, which is why I focused in WP:GNG in this AfD thread.  —Quondum 19:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete until somebody can write a better article. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC).
 * Rename The only genuine problem with this page is that it uses the term "Event symmetry" as a title and this is a usage that is not well supported by secondary sources for the subject matter. I therefore suggest that the page should be renamed to a more descriptive and generic title such as "space-time permutation symmetry" Weburbia (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This would, at absolute best, make it a case for WP:TNT. But both synthesis concerns (combining various ideas that might be called "space-time permutation symmetry" that the literature has not combined in any serious way) and notability (most such proposals are marginal and have a paucity of in-depth secondary sources) would persist. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I refuted most of the statements in the rationale in responses above. As for "A poorly explained notion of diffeomorphism invariance applied to a matrix model of M-theory", this is explained with reference to one of the seminal and well-cited matrix theory papers by Iso and Kawai which said in the abstract "We finally argue a possible identification of the diffeomorphism symmetry with permutation group acting on the set of eigenvalues,.." I don't know how it could be more clear.Weburbia (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom's analysis and Weburbia's comments to keep. Excellent rationale. Couldn't be clearer. -Roxy the sycamore . wooF 14:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFT. Riteboke (talk) 07:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per WP:NFT PianoDan (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Excellent rationale. --SimoneD89 (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.