Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singleton field


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Singleton field

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

Impossible to understand unless the reader is already a mathematician. The lead is supposed to be understandable with the tough stuff in the body of the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's discussed in several papers in Gscholar, but I'm not sure of what it is exactly. Needs a rewrite, perhaps review by a subject-matter expers. Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not believe that the nomination presents a valid deletion rationale. An article about advanced mathematical physics is going to be incomprehensible to readers who aren't mathematicians or physicists, and there's just not much we can do about that. A stub lacking an introduction that holds the reader's hand is not a reason to delete it. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep First, speedy keep criterion 1 applies: being too technical isn't a reason for deletion. It isn't even a problem, necessarily: we're talking about a niche subject that a physics student wouldn't even encounter until a couple years into graduate school at the earliest, not the opening paragraphs of the Albert Einstein biography page. Second, sources exist with which the article could be expanded. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Browsing the Google Scholar entries, (and being outside my scientific field), it does seem like there's enough coverage to warrant a stub, but it definitely needs to be encyclopedia-ified given how technical the subject is. I wonder if there may be a better home to nest this subject under for more context, but that would take someone well-versed in quantum mechanic subjects to assess. Until then, keep but definitely leave the tag from 2009. KoA (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as no valid reason for deletion has been advanced. PianoDan (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2023 (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.