Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravitationally-interacting massive particles


 * 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  09:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Gravitationally-interacting massive particles

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

This article is based on incorrect extrapolations of sources, which counts as original research WP:NOR, and unreliable sources WP:Reliability written by an author with the same name as the person who created this article (which is also potentially covered by WP:NOR). LewriBaedi (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lots of independent reliable sources out there on this topic, more than one included in the article.  The problems with the article, including the apparent COI, aren't a reason to delete it.  Unless perhaps it was so bad that it needed to be blown up, and I don't see that.  It is a somewhat niche theoretical possibility related to an extremely important topic (dark matter); does that make it independently notable?  Probably.  Lithopsian (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lithopsian bascially. The first reference uses GIMP and is not by Kleinert. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I thought I'd agree with Lithopsian and Headbomb, but the more I dig into this, the less sure I am. The paper that Headbomb mentions has only been cited 15 times in twelve years, mostly as a passing mention, and I'm not finding any secondary coverage at all.  For example: "Many other theories have been proposed to account for the Universe’s dark matter, most of which are not as promising as those already discussed. These include Q-balls, WIMPzillas, branons, and GIMPs [55–57]." None of the recent surveys of dark matter candidates I looked at mention them.  I don't think the case for this article is open-and-shut. PianoDan (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the situation I'm finding myself in; there's not nearly as much out there as I had first guessed there would be. Moreover, at least a few of the instances of the term "gravitationally interacting massive particle" appear to be about distinct concepts, i.e., not Kleinert's singularities. I don't think the Kaluza–Klein particles of the source provided or those in the proposal of Cho and Kim are what Kleinert hypothesized. So far, the instances of the term "gravitationally interacting massive particle" not by Kleinert have just meant "a massive particle that interacts only by gravity", as opposed to weakly interacting massive particles, which interact via gravity and some other force. So, at the moment, I'm not seeing a good "keep" case here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The first GS hit also uses the term in a generic sense, rather than being an independent source taking notice of Kleinert's specific idea. "Purely gravitational dark matter"  is a synonym for the more general meaning that may be somewhat more common. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I included "GIMP" in my searches because just using the words "gravitationally interacting massive particles" produced too many unrelated terms, but the results I got appeared to be widespread and significant. I've just been scanning abstracts, maybe I need to read deeper.  Is the article too narrowly focused on a type of GIMP favoured by Keinert that is different from other definitions of GIMPs?  Lithopsian (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The article text is narrowly focused on Kleinert's proposal, which is different from others and which seems to have had not much influence at all. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete OK, this is where I've ended up. Excluding all the false positives — the appearances in papers that use the same phrase to mean something else — there just isn't enough to merit an article about Kleinert's proposal specifically. Revising the page to reflect the actual ways the term has been used would amount to blowing it up and starting over again, and it's not clear that the topic of "hypothetical dark-matter particles that only interact gravitationally" needs to be under this title, or even have a whole page unto itself. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Yeah, I think I'm there too. PianoDan (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I really should have further explained myself, so thank you to PianoDan and XOReaster for their discussion. If we look at the sources: source 1 introduces a hypothetical particle which it calls Gravitationally-interacting massive particles, however it does not match the rest of the discussion of this article in terms of properties/composition or "implications"; source 2 is a conflict of interest, as well as unreliable - being "published" in a journal that does not disclose its supposed peer-review system and is clearly not a well regarded given its citescore and SJR values - and is not well regarded given it has only been cited 3 times in "published" works (again, none of which are reliable sources) according to InspireHEP; Sources 3-6 are fluff for the background section, irrelevant to the article, except reference 5 which is cited again in a completely nonsensical claim that constitutes original research; reference 7 then falls again under conflict of interest/original research as another Kleinert work, and I personally can't even verify its claims as it is not accessible; finally reference 8 is irrelevant fluff and serves no purpose except masking the inadequacies of this article (WP:MASK). So in summary, if this article is kept as is, then it is unreliable as only one or two sources are relevant to the main points of the article, and they are unreliable sources suffering a conflict of interest. If the article was to instead be blown up, then it would become a general article about any hypothetical particle that interacts only gravitationally, however that would likely still fall under notability issues due to there being very little literature on this topic, and certainly none that are well cited. I see no reason to allow this article to stay in its current condition, and I see little reason to blow it up for a rewrite about something so unnotable. LewriBaedi (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per analysis by &mdash; the article consists largely of irrelevant background material, non-RS, and WP:OR; and it is not really clear what this article is supposed to be about. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 21:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Not directly about the point of keep or delete but one thing that maybe could help decide what to do would be to consider the possibility of creating an article like "List of dark matter candidates", there is a nice section on Dark matter and a nice template too Template:Dark matter but there are some missing candidates like some of those on List of particles so there is still work to do which maybe would be easier to keep in a dedicated article. Since not all candidates are equally relevant those less prominent instead of having their on page could just be mentioned in the centralized article (or not at all if totally irrelevant which may be or not the case of GIMPs). There are some concept that have more or less this kind of pattern (Dark matter/Template:Dark matter/List of dark matter candidates) like State of matter/Template:States of matter/List of states of matter, Particle physics/Template:Particles/List of particles, neutrino/Template:Neutrino detectors/List of neutrino experiments, etc. Organized/tabulated jointly with some info on particles detectors (types, range, constraints on candidates, etc) it could offer a clearer view on the topic, keep tidy those articles that are really just stubs and help track advances, hopefully. Dabed (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per and . There is not enough coverage to merit an article about it. Independent sources have too few citations to show notability. --SimoneD89 (talk) 14:39, 21 April 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.