Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MSSM Higgs Mass


 * 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   merge to Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. If anyone wants to source this in the future, they are free to split it out into a separate article again. The consensus here seems to be that it is better to merge the article than to leave it unsourced. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 11:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

MSSM Higgs Mass

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Maybe I'm being overly bold. This article has been tagged as unreferenced since December 2009. Is that reason enough for deletion?Buster79 (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge - It is unreferenced but it seems notable, maybe merge it with Minimal_Supersymmetric_Standard_Model? Seems like it would fit under there with the article being a specific part of the MSSM.    Sintaku  Talk 22:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 14 February 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(talk) 06:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Keep Keep or Merge for now, and tag article (if kept as article). Google scholar links various cited research articles on this topic that are published in peer reviewed journals . I am seeing one citation rate of 417 for the fourth article down on the first page. Also, other citation rates that over 100 for different published articles (second article down on the first page). Flip through the first Google Scholar pages for this topic and it can be seen that some citation rates are over 100. In all, there a various citation rates throughout. Additionally, this topic seems to have received a lot of coverage. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge. Its important but it is a subpart of MSSM. So it will be better to merge it with MSSMUnatnas1986 (talk) 15:10, 2 March 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.