879:(leaving aside the usual half-assed Davidson Google Books Oracle); but as noted, this is a complex topic that is being done a disservice by this hodge-podge skim treatment of some buzzwords off the top. I really don't know much about this area, but what I understand tells me that any reader who finds this article will be going away in greater confusion than they arrived. We do not keep crappy material around indefinitely; such topics are better off as redirects until an editor writes something actually useful. --
845:
414:
312:, per nomination. There is nothing recoverable here. These are deep and vast equations and WP has maybe 500 maybe 1000 existing articles exploring all their various aspects and how they inter-relate and flow into one another. This article as written is garbled and appears to make interpretive errors. (and yes, the arxiv papers do look interesting, but this article does not describe those papers.)
441:
530:
Those books have some of the same words in their title as this article; all of those words are the names of famous physicists, plus the word "equation". Do you have any reason beyond that to believe that they are on the same topic as the article in question? (Please note that an affirmative answer
1113:
I am assuming that the article "Einstein-Maxwell-Dirac equations" should deal with the
Einstein-Maxwell-Dirac equations, which are distinct from the Einstein equations, the Maxwell equations, the Dirac equation or the Einstein-Maxwell equations. If you look into some of Finster et al.'s papers, you
596:
No, but the other thread you commented on "@AnotherEditor144: The article is more likely to survive this AfD if you do that (remove the bad stuff) so that it is easier to tell that what remains is in fact legitimate (i.e., supported by multiple independent reliable sources). --JBL (talk) 15:46, 14
1179:
basically in recognition of the fact that it's been broken for a decade. The commonality of the names in the physics literature will naturally lead to a heap of false positives in Google Books and
Scholar results. (What's more illuminating is looking to see how much attention the original
1188:.) This is the kind of topic that would better be written about in an article on the problem it is attempting to solve or the general question its inventors were trying to illuminate. However, the current text is so poor, rambling about various supposed features of the theory rather than
1048:, the article doesn't even say what these equations are. There are a few papers by Finster/Smoller/Yau on these equations, but the article makes no coherent argument why these equations are generally notable. If this is kept, everything but maybe the first sentence should be removed. —
1022:
Fair enough. It doesn't seem to deal with
Finster et al.'s work specifically, but the book does mention related approaches to quantum gravity such as Einstein-Yang-Mills theory and Einstein-Dirac-Yang-Mills-Higgs theory, which would probably be a better basis for an article anyway.
237:
is legitimate research that failed to capture the interest of the scientific community. I don't want to argue about notability, though, because the main problem is that the article as it currently exists is nonsensical drivel, almost qualifying for
1114:
can find out what the EMD equations are, but the present
Knowledge (XXG) article gives no hint whatsoever (other than the educated guess "a suitable combination of other equations", but how these should be combined is exactly the question here). —
201:
1161:
1201:
390:
The article is more likely to survive this AfD if you do that (remove the bad stuff) so that it is easier to tell that what remains is in fact legitimate (i.e., supported by multiple independent reliable sources).
936:
I suspect you will find out in short order that relentless badgering of every single comment is not a way to get taken seriously in any discussion on WP. Neither is trying to play essays off against each other.
763:
You have been replying to every single comment in this AfD, so you must deeply care about the subject. Fix the article yourself then if you want to save it, "maybe somebody will do it" is not good enough.
1000:, and many of these Scholar hits. It's certainly a thing that people might search for. - In any case, I'd rather the search came up blank than with this article, so deletion would be my second choice. --
195:
135:
130:
139:
122:
162:
670:
730:
anyway). There's nothing worth salvaging. Also note that the article has been like this for 10 years, and nobody showed up to fix it. I don't think it is ever going to happen.
650:
242:. It has languished under maintenance tags for more than 10 years and nobody competent appeared to fix it. Even if it were notable, the only way forward would be
216:
94:
183:
877:
109:
1184:, including self-citations and non-peer-reviewed material, is very low for the subject area. This aligns with the nominator's statement that the topic is
963:
I went through your Google
Scholar results, and there are plenty of false positives and trivial mentions. It would be helpful if you could find a single
1257:
1239:
1222:
1143:
1129:
1108:
1063:
1032:
1017:
976:
954:
923:
896:
862:
837:
816:
796:
773:
758:
739:
721:
709:
682:
662:
637:
604:
584:
563:
540:
518:
469:
457:
426:
400:
378:
359:
338:
321:
302:
286:
270:
255:
64:
1072:
There doesn't seem to be any doubt about which equations are meant but, in any case, article indicates by links that the equations in question are:
177:
173:
726:
The problem with the article is not poor writing, but rather that the content is incoherent rambling (and I'm not claiming it falls under
223:
789:: Opinion is increasingly turning against a deletion. This is not a consensus yet (only 75% of !votes are Keep), but it might be soon.
371:
There is still useful content. Throw away all of the bad stuff, and the good stuff remains. Sure, it will be a stub, but that is okay.
313:
497:
491:
89:
82:
17:
992:
Sure, plenty of partial matches, but to my understanding we are served here by anything that deals with "Einstein-Maxwell-Dirac
189:
261:
The page seems to have maybe five sentences at best of real content and a bunch of publications and non-peer-reviewed stuff.
103:
99:
1181:
126:
1012:
949:
891:
1274:
40:
1125:
1059:
705:
118:
70:
1230:
I agree there is nothing to salvage here, and it really doesn't help that this has been the case for a whole decade.
575:
I asked Andrew a question. Your comment is not an answer to my question. Do you have an answer to my question? --
1104:
514:
1086:
266:
1216:
678:
658:
531:
here would have to relate in some way to what is actually written in the article, not just to its title.) --
501:. No doubt this could be done better but this is Knowledge (XXG) and you get what you pay for. Our policy
873:
701:
317:
964:
828:. Might not quite be G1, but the page is definitely deep into TNT territorry. Nothing worth saving here.
502:
1270:
1197:
1157:
917:
856:
810:
790:
752:
715:
696:
explicitly does not cover poor writing. You can start an article from scratch without deleting it - see
598:
570:
557:
498:
Orbiting The Moons Of Pluto: Complex
Solutions To The Einstein, Maxwell, Schrodinger And Dirac Equations
463:
451:
420:
385:
372:
345:
332:
280:
36:
1091:
1100:
623:
547:
525:
510:
506:
1192:
it and resorting to PowerPoint-style bullets halfway through, that there would be nothing to merge.
996:" (and the related equations); and that one we will find covered in most specialized textbooks, e.g
1235:
1139:
580:
536:
505:
explicitly welcomes such half-baked work. Even the professional physicists are still working on a
396:
355:
262:
209:
913:
876:(or one of various other valid targets) in absence of salvageable content. Of course it's a thing
852:
806:
697:
1211:
1149:
674:
654:
1008:
945:
887:
78:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1269:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
997:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1193:
1153:
1028:
972:
769:
735:
633:
251:
1248:
1209:: Umm, no, this is in TNT territory. May be notable but will need a comprehensive rewrite.
802:
243:
1253:
1121:
1055:
833:
298:
727:
693:
276:
239:
1231:
1135:
1081:
615:
591:
576:
551:
532:
433:
407:
392:
366:
351:
55:
844:
413:
1186:
legitimate research that failed to capture the interest of the scientific community
1002:
939:
903:
881:
156:
556:
I agree with Andrew. This subject is a work in progress, but it is still useful.
1024:
987:
968:
765:
746:
731:
629:
247:
293:"Delete" - agree, this article is a mess, that is most likely unrecoverable. --
1116:
1050:
907:
829:
350:
That is true regardless of whether the current content is kept or deleted. --
294:
440:
235:
233:
620:
I've checked the books, and neither is actually about the subject.
1265:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
509:
as that's currently incomplete and imperfect too. So it goes.
751:
Maybe this AfD will give people a reason to improve it.
492:
The Many Faces of
Maxwell, Dirac and Einstein Equations
448:
152:
148:
144:
208:
222:
1152:to judging notability fails for technical topics.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1277:). No further edits should be made to this page.
671:list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions
669:Note: This discussion has been included in the
649:Note: This discussion has been included in the
331:. The article can be recovered and restarted.
462:If this AfD fails, then rewrite the article.
8:
1148:Yes, this is a good illustration of how the
651:list of Science-related deletion discussions
110:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
668:
648:
447:for me. Can you consider working on it? I
967:source in order to establish notability.
489:Here's a couple of books on the subject:
450:an uncited paragraph, among other things
912:Then someone will clean it up. Remember
916:every time you do something like this.
628:come on, what the hell are you doing?!
1185:
1180:publications have gotten; for example
275:This definitely does not qualify for
232:The underlying theory, introduced in
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
998:Symmetries in Fundamental Physics
843:
439:
412:
119:Einstein–Maxwell–Dirac equations
95:Introduction to deletion process
71:Einstein–Maxwell–Dirac equations
597:February 2021 (UTC)" is good.
1:
1258:16:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
1240:15:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
1223:01:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
1202:20:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
1162:15:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
1144:20:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
1130:20:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
1109:17:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
1064:12:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
1033:16:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
1018:15:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
977:10:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
955:15:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
924:08:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
897:04:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
863:08:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
838:16:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
817:16:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
805:reasoning has backfired. See
797:16:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
774:09:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
759:08:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
740:17:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
722:16:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
710:15:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
683:14:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
663:14:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
638:09:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
605:15:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
585:15:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
564:15:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
541:15:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
519:12:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
470:16:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
458:15:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
427:15:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
401:15:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
379:15:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
360:15:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
339:09:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
322:06:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
303:05:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
287:16:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
271:02:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
256:23:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
65:12:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
85:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1294:
1249:blow it up and start again
801:Additionally, I think the
1267:Please do not modify it.
1182:46 citations in 22 years
1087:Einstein field equations
32:Please do not modify it.
874:classical field theory
438:This will probably be
1150:bag-of-words approach
83:Articles for deletion
842:Yes, there is! I am
507:theory of everything
1092:Maxwell's equations
1016:
953:
895:
702:SailingInABathTub
685:
665:
100:Guide to deletion
90:How to contribute
63:
1285:
1256:
1219:
1214:
1006:
1005:
991:
943:
942:
911:
885:
884:
847:
750:
627:
619:
595:
574:
571:AnotherEditor144
555:
529:
443:
437:
416:
411:
389:
386:AnotherEditor144
370:
349:
346:AnotherEditor144
227:
226:
212:
160:
142:
80:
62:
60:
53:
34:
1293:
1292:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1275:deletion review
1252:
1217:
1212:
1001:
985:
938:
901:
880:
851:, and remember
744:
624:Andrew Davidson
621:
613:
589:
568:
548:Andrew Davidson
545:
526:Andrew Davidson
523:
431:
405:
383:
364:
343:
169:
133:
117:
114:
77:
74:
56:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1291:
1289:
1280:
1279:
1261:
1260:
1242:
1225:
1204:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1089:
1084:
1082:Dirac equation
1074:
1073:
1067:
1066:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
980:
979:
960:
959:
958:
957:
929:
928:
927:
926:
867:
866:
865:
822:
821:
820:
819:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
724:
687:
686:
666:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
429:
325:
324:
306:
305:
291:
290:
289:
263:AManWithNoPlan
230:
229:
166:
113:
112:
107:
97:
92:
75:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1290:
1278:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1263:
1262:
1259:
1255:
1250:
1246:
1243:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1226:
1224:
1221:
1220:
1215:
1208:
1205:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1178:
1175:
1174:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1118:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1099:
1093:
1090:
1088:
1085:
1083:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1052:
1047:
1044:
1043:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1014:
1010:
1004:
999:
995:
989:
984:
983:
982:
981:
978:
974:
970:
966:
962:
961:
956:
951:
947:
941:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
925:
922:
921:
918:AnotherEditor
915:
909:
905:
900:
899:
898:
893:
889:
883:
878:
875:
871:
868:
864:
861:
860:
857:AnotherEditor
854:
850:
846:
841:
840:
839:
835:
831:
827:
824:
823:
818:
815:
814:
811:AnotherEditor
808:
804:
800:
799:
798:
795:
794:
791:AnotherEditor
788:
785:
784:
775:
771:
767:
762:
761:
760:
757:
756:
753:AnotherEditor
748:
743:
742:
741:
737:
733:
729:
725:
723:
720:
719:
716:AnotherEditor
713:
712:
711:
707:
703:
699:
695:
692:
689:
688:
684:
680:
676:
675:Coolabahapple
672:
667:
664:
660:
656:
655:Coolabahapple
652:
647:
646:
639:
635:
631:
625:
617:
612:
606:
603:
602:
599:AnotherEditor
593:
588:
587:
586:
582:
578:
572:
567:
566:
565:
562:
561:
558:AnotherEditor
553:
549:
544:
543:
542:
538:
534:
527:
522:
521:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
499:
494:
493:
488:
485:
484:
471:
468:
467:
464:AnotherEditor
461:
460:
459:
456:
455:
452:AnotherEditor
449:
446:
442:
435:
430:
428:
425:
424:
421:AnotherEditor
419:
415:
409:
404:
403:
402:
398:
394:
387:
382:
381:
380:
377:
376:
373:AnotherEditor
368:
363:
362:
361:
357:
353:
347:
342:
341:
340:
337:
336:
333:AnotherEditor
330:
327:
326:
323:
319:
315:
311:
308:
307:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
285:
284:
281:AnotherEditor
278:
274:
273:
272:
268:
264:
260:
259:
258:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
236:
234:
225:
221:
218:
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
175:
172:
171:Find sources:
167:
164:
158:
154:
150:
146:
141:
137:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
115:
111:
108:
105:
101:
98:
96:
93:
91:
88:
87:
86:
84:
79:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1266:
1264:
1244:
1227:
1210:
1206:
1189:
1176:
1115:
1049:
1045:
993:
965:WP:SECONDARY
919:
869:
858:
848:
825:
812:
792:
786:
754:
717:
690:
600:
559:
503:WP:IMPERFECT
496:
490:
486:
465:
453:
444:
422:
417:
374:
334:
328:
314:67.198.37.16
309:
282:
231:
219:
213:
205:
198:
192:
186:
180:
170:
76:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1254:D🐶ggy54321
1134:Exactly. --
196:free images
1194:XOR'easter
1154:XOR'easter
58:Sandstein
1271:talk page
1232:Lennart97
1218:Hurricane
853:WP:TNTTNT
807:WP:TNTTNT
714:I agree.
698:WP:TNTTNT
616:JayBeeEll
592:JayBeeEll
552:JayBeeEll
434:JayBeeEll
408:JayBeeEll
367:JayBeeEll
37:talk page
1273:or in a
1190:defining
1013:contribs
950:contribs
892:contribs
870:Redirect
849:Doing...
418:Doing...
163:View log
104:glossary
39:or in a
1003:Elmidae
940:Elmidae
904:Elmidae
882:Elmidae
787:Comment
445:On hold
202:WP refs
190:scholar
136:protect
131:history
81:New to
1245:Delete
1228:Delete
1207:Delete
1177:Delete
1101:Andrew
1046:Delete
1025:Tercer
994:theory
988:Tercer
969:Tercer
826:Delete
803:WP:TNT
766:Tercer
747:Tercer
732:Tercer
630:Tercer
511:Andrew
310:Delete
248:Tercer
244:WP:TNT
174:Google
140:delete
50:delete
1117:Kusma
1051:Kusma
908:Nsk92
830:Nsk92
728:WP:G1
694:WP:G1
295:Bduke
279:now.
277:WP:G1
240:WP:G1
217:JSTOR
178:books
157:views
149:watch
145:links
16:<
1236:talk
1213:Java
1198:talk
1158:talk
1140:talk
1105:talk
1029:talk
1009:talk
973:talk
946:talk
914:this
906:and
888:talk
834:talk
770:talk
736:talk
706:talk
691:Keep
679:talk
659:talk
634:talk
581:talk
550:and
537:talk
515:talk
487:Keep
397:talk
356:talk
329:Keep
318:talk
299:talk
267:talk
252:talk
210:FENS
184:news
153:logs
127:talk
123:edit
1136:JBL
1103:🐉(
920:144
872:to
859:144
813:144
793:144
755:144
718:144
601:144
577:JBL
560:144
533:JBL
513:🐉(
466:144
454:144
423:144
393:JBL
375:144
352:JBL
335:144
283:144
224:TWL
161:– (
1251:.
1247:,
1238:)
1200:)
1160:)
1142:)
1128:)
1107:)
1062:)
1031:)
1011:·
975:)
948:·
937:--
890:·
855:.
836:)
809:.
772:)
738:)
708:)
700:.
681:)
673:.
661:)
653:.
636:)
583:)
539:)
517:)
399:)
391:--
358:)
320:)
301:)
269:)
254:)
246:.
204:)
155:|
151:|
147:|
143:|
138:|
134:|
129:|
125:|
52:.
1234:(
1196:(
1156:(
1138:(
1126:c
1124:·
1122:t
1120:(
1060:c
1058:·
1056:t
1054:(
1027:(
1015:)
1007:(
990::
986:@
971:(
952:)
944:(
910::
902:@
894:)
886:(
832:(
768:(
749::
745:@
734:(
704:(
677:(
657:(
632:(
626::
622:@
618::
614:@
594::
590:@
579:(
573::
569:@
554::
546:@
535:(
528::
524:@
495:;
436::
432:@
410::
406:@
395:(
388::
384:@
369::
365:@
354:(
348::
344:@
316:(
297:(
265:(
250:(
228:)
220:·
214:·
206:·
199:·
193:·
187:·
181:·
176:(
168:(
165:)
159:)
121:(
106:)
102:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.