Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luon


 * 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. Essentially a non-verifiable theory published by a single source, which Wikipedia cannot implicitly promote on behalf of the author. This should be only re-created when and if it receives wider scientific coverage and scrutiny. § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Luon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completing nomination started by, with rationale on Talk:Luon: The article does not appear to have the required relevance (not even in the field of theoretical particle physics). The term Luon is apparently only used by the individual author of the cited paper. Also the article rather explains the notion of a quasiparticle than what is specific about this particular one. &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  22:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO   22:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This article is about a newly discovered phenomenon in theoretical physics that has been reported in a top-ranked scientific journal. It includes the required reference and does not violate any copyright restrictions. Therefore it is in full agreement with wikipedia's rules and should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 马口 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 2 April 2014‎ (UTC)
 * Delete. A primary source can't establish notability. "Newly discovered" implies WP:TOSOON. &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  22:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * H HHIPPO  I just checked WP:TOSOON, I do not think it applies because if one would follow that logic, then wikipedia should also not have covered the Higgs boson until it was discovered. By this I do not want to claim that the luon will be equally relevant for physics in the future as the Higgs boss is - I just want to say that wikipedia covers a vast about of information that is not entirely established in the sense that it is still subject of scientific discussion. And that is good, everything else would be very worrying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 马口 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Higgs was notable long before it was experimentally confirmed, but that doesn't mean everything that's not found yet is notable. Being subject of a scientific discussion (certified by reliable secondary sources) establishes notability of a topic, being subject of a single paper does not (yet). &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  16:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as junk article created on 1 April. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Xxanthippe I can ensure you this is not an Aprils joke. Please check the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 马口 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC) — 马口 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep To be honest, I am quite surprised by the suggestion to delete the article. After all, it describes a phenomenon that was considered significant enough to get published in a top-ranked international journal in the field. I would have thought that the criteria for that should not be not lower than those in an open source project like wikipedia. If the article indeed gets deleted, that would cast severe doubts on how "open" wikipedia really is. To be a bit more concrete, I would like to know
 * 1) Which wikipedia rule is violated by the article?
 * 2) About notability: I wonder whose judgement the decision whether something is "notable" or not is based. Is any of the people who suggest that the article should be deleted an expert in the field? If yes, than please explain me why he/she is sure that this phenomenon is not notable.
 * 3) Which is the definition of notability anyway? I just checked that wikipedia covers information about the changes in hairstyle of Justin Bieber. I personally do not think this is notable at all. Nevertheless I would not dare to delete this information because it seems to me other people find it important, and I do not feel entitled to question that. I thought that is the whole point of an open source project - to share knowledge that different groups of people might consider relevant or interesting. To my understanding, the only reasons why something should be deleted from Wikipedia is if it is a) incorrect, b) insulting/racist/etc or c) clearly completely irrelevant. a) and b) certainly do not apply, and I am pretty sure that c) does not apply either because this is a scientific discovery that was considered important enough to be published in a top-ranked international journal. What implications this theoretical discovery has will become clear in years to come, but I think saying that it is "not notable" at this stage is a very strong statement. Who says so should provide clear reasons for this opinion.马口 (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 马口 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)  — 马口 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The main difference between scientific journal and Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Our inclusion criterion is not that a topic is correct or brilliant or important. We only report what the scientific community says about the topic. To do that from a neutral point of view and to establish that there actually is a scientific discussion on the topic, we have to wait until the topic is dicussed in secondary sources.
 * See also WP:N, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, e.g. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  16:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete As far as I can tell, the concept of a luon, an alternative name for a kind of plasmon, only appears in the one cited paper. The paper is a reliable source, per WP:RS, but is a primary source. According to notability guidelines WP:GNG, a topic needs multiple, in-depth, secondary reliable sources that are independent of the creator. As a paper that was published just 2 weeks ago, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON; not been enough time has elapsed for independent reliable sources to develop, i.e., review papers, news stories from reputable publishers, etc. Without multiple RS, this article fails notability guidelines. An alternative to deletion would be to userfy the article. --Mark viking (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge Mark viking, thanks for the comments. The luon is indeed something very similar to a plasmon. And the paper is a primary source, so one could argue that the guideline requiring secondary sources applies. It would still surprise me if this is a reason for deletion because I have seen loads of articles without any "reliable sources" at all (neither primary nor secondary), and also articles that differ considerably from what is said in the source they quote (making it questionable whether the source qualifies as such). If the majority of people who are in charge of deleting articles here in spite of this fact think that it is absolutely necessary and unavoidable to delete the article, then one possibility would be to integrate its content into the plasmon article.马口 (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)马口 (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC) — 马口 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - per AVOIDCOI, should disclose that they are the creator of the article. Also, they have voted twice, so I crossed out the first one. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm new at editing articles, but from the rules I understood this is a discussion rather than a vote, and it's more about the content of the comments rather than their number. I didn't to give a false impression by posting more than once. With my second post I simply responded to the comments of other users. Btw, I personally do not think anyone's identity should be relevant for judging the content of anything that is written if it's objective.马口 (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC) — 马口 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yes, I don't doubt you were acting in good faith. I'm just tidying up loose ends. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Keep - This article as it is can't exist. But there needs to be more to put in the article in order for it to not be marked as a stub, including:
 * This is a new discovery (but not new enough to be WP:TOSOON)
 * Actual formulas detailing how it can be achieved for verifications
 * More scholarly sources confirming its existence
 * For example, check the Landau Pole article for what this should look like to constitute a Wikipedia article of this nature. Mystipedian (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions. I'm happy to edit and improve the article, but I will wait a bit more for the outcome of the discussion here. If the majority of people who are in control of wikipedia (i.e. can remove articles here) insist on deleting the article, then it would be a waste of time to edit it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 马口 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 10 April 2014
 * Always happy to help! Mystipedian (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as people who are in control of wikipedia, there are inclusion criteria defined by broad community consensus, which this topic not yet fulfills. The word insist is maybe not the best way to describe people who don't change their opinion without reason.
 * WP:TOSOON says the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles, require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources, and it seems to be consensus here that no seconday sources on that topic exist as of now. &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  18:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe my choice of words is a bit strong. However, there clearly are people who are in "control" on the following sense: As far as I understand the rules, this is a discussion (not a vote). So the decision about deleting/keeping an article in the end does not automatically follow from the number of "keep" or "merge" vs "delete", but is made by a human based on the arguments in the discussion and his/her interpretation of the consensus-rules. This person must have some kind of administrator rights to delete articles which (I think) I do not have. About the criteria... I can see where you are coming from regarding secondary sources. But if this were applied consistently, then I believe a large number of articles on wikipedia should be deleted because many of them do not even have any sources at all that I would consider reliable, and it seems to me that this is not done. I can also see why you don't like the word "insist". I didn't mean to offend anyone by than, but since most discussions do not have a unique result that follows necessarily from the arguments like in a mathematical proof, it is quite easy to have two people who "do not change their mind without a reason", but also do not have the same opinion. That's what I mean my "insist" - with no intention to offend anyone!马口 (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read OTHERSTUFF. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see... if one follows the argument of that pokemon example, then I guess the natural consequence would be a merge马口 (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Possibly. If so, I think the best target would be Quasiparticle. However, I am reluctant to actually vote for that because there is still only one source, and that recent and primary. The people editing Quasiparticle would be in their rights to challenge and remove it. In your position, I'd try adding a brief description of this particle to that section and see what happens. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right about the role of administrators, but they don't make the rules, they only implement them. Also, you shouldn't think that you're fighting here against an evil cabal of powerful old wikipedians who just don't like your article. This would be a common misconception of new editors who start out by writing about their own work which they are obviously passionate about and which they don't want to see "deleted" for any reason. There's nothing wrong with Luons, the concept is just too new for an encyclopedia article at this time. I usually find it much easier to work on topics I have no personal connection with, and leave the writing about whatever noteworthy I might have done to others.
 * Regarding other articles lacking sources: you're more than welcome to help out by either adding citations to them or nominating them for deletion. Keep in mind though that there's a difference between "no secondary sources have been added to the article yet" and "everybody agrees that no secondary sources exist". &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  20:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 马口 Exactly as he said. And we definitely don't mind that you wrote this entry, and don't misinterpret us as doing so. We love that you took it upon yourself to write about something you feel so passionately for. It simply needs more "Meat and potatoes" to make it a full entry, which means more citations, more detail and more info, to restate my OP. Mystipedian (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete- Fails WP:GNG (significant coverage in multiple WP:RS). Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  23:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails notability: a single paper is far, far below the notability threshold. -- 119.225.153.211 (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. The creator should possibly take note that creating wikipedia articles about ones own work is generally considered bad form.TR 16:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I exported it toLuon, where it fits better for the editor's purpose than the goals of Wikipedia. - Sidelight 12 Talk 03:32, 13 April 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.