Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of infinitely extended 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. Wikipedia is not responsible for proving/disproving advanced mathematical equations, but we do note that few others have commented on it in widely-read works on the subject. Joyous! | Talk 03:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Theory of infinitely extended particles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable fringe theory presented as if it's the best thing ever. Legitimate sources are cited, but have no relevance to the subject of the article. Dukwon (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with nom, and it definitely fails the sniff test. The references are red herrings, reliable in their own right but having nothing to do with the article itself. The article itself even states that the theory has only been referenced by two other individuals since its conception. Primefac (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete obviously. I am also concerned that the article on the subject's creator, Mahmoud Hessabi, seems to be a eulogy of a non-notable academic, rather than a reliably-sourced biography of encyclopedic value.  I believe this should also be nominated for deletion.  The biography article describes the subject's paper on "continuous particles" as "classic", and yet a Google scholar search returns almost no hits.  Via "What links here", it seems that there is a walled-garden of non-notable Iranian scientists, e.g., Alenush Terian.  This whole area needs some pruning, I think.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete for the reasons described by PrimeFac and Dukwon. --Steve (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient notability. Dilaton (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SNOW and as not even wrong. I am something of an amateur scientist, and this strikes me as nonsense. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Responses to the Delete Requests

The page should be kept for the reasons below:

->Dukwon 1) This theory is neither claimed to be "the best thing ever" nor "fringe theory". This was your own impression. It is only a different approach and mathematical formalism, and is capable of reproducing some useful results.

->Primefac 2) Naming references first as "red herrings" and then irrelevant does not explain how a theory should not work.

->Sławomir Biały 3) Calling the writing as an "eulogy of a non-notable academic" and referring to "walled-garden of non-notable Iranian scientists" is a very inappropriate means to evaluate a mathematical model. This is not the domain of politics, nationalism, or heroism. You may dislike the deceased author, or hate a nation, or tend to disregard your unfavored non-notables, for whatever reason you personally might have. But this is science based on clear mathematics, and not being referred to as "classic". Where did you find it on this page ?!. Better to check the derivation steps out yourself, and tell if calculations are wrong instead. The "only two" citations are quite correct as claimed.

->Steve 4) Answered in the above

-> Dilation 5) Is "Insufficient notability" how you deal with mathematics?

-> Bearian 6) Referring to the [3] on arxiv, it is actually falsifiable, and hence a valid scientific claim. There are some physical assumptions, mathematical derivations, and then predictions. Some predictions agree to within the accuracy of present-day experiments, some may not. Using "Not even wrong" is wrong here.

In summary, if anybody out there feels inconvenient about this theory and Wikipedia post, then it would be nice to disprove it mathematically through a fair scientific approach, than to humiliate and take prejudice in someone. Exposing a less known methodology increases chances for critical evaluations in future, corrections to the known theories. This is what science is all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.178.177.67 (talk • contribs)


 * Disproving or proving unproven scientific theories is not consistent with Wikipedia's aims. In fact, there is a policy against original research.  If this theory is important and significant enough for an encyclopedia article, it would be discussed extensively in independent secondary sources.  The lack of secondary sources implies that it is not notable enough to have an encyclopedia article devoted to it.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Unless some other independent and reliable academic source has proved it, for our purposes, it is not verified. I'm not sure the proponent of this article understands what Wikipedia is, and is not. Therefore, it is not even wrong as far as we are concerned. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S., arXiv is notable, but is not technically peer-reviewed. With 8,000 entries added each month, much of what's on arXiv is run of the mill. Any previously published scientist can post anything new on that website. In any case, by definition, arXiv is a primary source. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2016 (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.