Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FP420 experiment


 * 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 keep. Article has been improved and notability established. (non-admin closure) Tol &#124; Talk &#124; Contribs 19:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

ATLAS Forward Proton Project (ne&eacute; FP420 experiment)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

It was original prodded by with the rationale "No information can be found about this experiment, probably it just didn't happen or was renamed. In either case, having an article under this name is pointless."

I have undone this, basically because there is plenty of information about the project (e.g. ). However, Tercer is right that this project seems to be one that fizzled out, or was never carried out.

So I'm putting this up for AfD instead. Sources are weak/all primary sources, but maybe some more digging can find what happened to it, or if it's just one of many projects that never took off. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is now called the ATLAS Forward Proton Project as given at ATLAS experiment? "The first phase of the installation (AFP220) is planned for the long LHC shutdown starting in 2012. [&hellip;] The second phase (AFP420) is more complicated from the technical point of view, because 420 m is already the LHC cold region and to install the detectors one needs to interfere with the machine liquid helium system.""NEAR stations installed just before COVID-19 lock-down (Mar. 2020),installation of FAR stations postponed to Summer 2021(travel restrictions)."
 * Uncle G (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Uncle G (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I'm sorry, my PROD rationale was unclear, I meant that no current information can be found about FP420, the original sources are dead links. There's an almost 4-year old tag in the article asking what happened to it. I thought PROD was well-suited, because if anybody knows what this experiment is they could just contest it and add the information. Now managed to find out, it was indeed renamed to ATLAS Forward Proton Project. Tercer (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The rational wasn't unclear, I just disagreed with PROD as a process to handle something unknown. Uncle G's finds are great, and exactly what I was hoping to trigger with an AFD. Still haven't made my mind about a keep vs merge, but at least now we know what happened to FP420 and can make an educated decision. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to ATLAS experiment. This is a design study for a detector that hasn't even been built yet. After it gets built and produces results there will be enough information to write a sensible article about it, in the meanwhile coverage within the ATLAS article will give it better context and will be more likely to be properly maintained. Tercer (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It has been producing results since 2017.
 * Uncle G (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The 420m detectors have been cancelled, but sure, the redesigned experiment was built and produced results. Tercer (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to ATLAS experiment. Internal infrastructure isn't worth having a separate article about; it makes more sense to describe this in the article on the ATLAS experiment itself, and split it off in the unlikely eventuality that there's so much to say and so many non-internal sources that a separate article becomes preferable. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep because of the enthusiastic expansion by, now there is material for a sensible stand-alone article. Tercer (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * keep The expansion mostly by at special:diff/1015890700/1015986485 is substantial and establishes WP:N.   Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep because of the enthusiastic expansion by, now there is material for a sensible stand-alone article. Tercer (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * keep The expansion mostly by at special:diff/1015890700/1015986485 is substantial and establishes WP:N.   Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong keep., this is not "internal infrastructure". This is the process of cutting edge experimental physics. Wikipedia covers theoretical high energy physics and the standard model and lots of speculation thereon in great detail. All that would be nowhere without the experimental science and engineering that goes into the enormously complex and expensive accelerator facilities providing the data. Wikipedia covers experimental high energy physics poorly. We don't even have categories for the colliders and detectors. This is like covering space exploration without having articles about rockets and satellites. The technical details in those innumerable rocket and spacecraft articles don't come from the daily papers, they come from the agencies responsible. It will be the same way for high energy physics experiments. This article is an important subtopic of the Large Hadron Collider whose discoveries are covered in every media outlet on the planet. The technical details will come from the papers that report the science and engineering that creates the experimental facilities. We need more of these articles. More could be split out from the ATLAS experiment and more could be written about older experiments. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Even after the expansion, this seems more like a merge than a keep-separate situation to me. The content is fine, but it appears at the moment to be better used as part of a larger whole. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2021 (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.