351:
Mysteriously, I can find little about this topic that I can understand, and I feel a bit of a duality as a result. The topic seems to be notable only within discourse between advanced-level string theorists themselves -- that is, there is no general readership concept that the article can cover, because it looks like the concept itself is so reliant on advanced string theory. In summary, it's notable only in-universe within the string theory community but not encyclopaedically for
Knowledge (XXG) and, mysteriously, I must therefore (dualistically) vote for deletion. --
739:. I'm not convinced deletion is the correct option for the encyclopedia, but I suppose we have to accept that in some cases interesting ideas in theoretical physics do get "put on the backburner". The General Notability criteria are not that useful in determining when it makes sense to treat such concepts as fireworks with faulty fuses. The way science works is that ideas can morph, and you need an expert to point out where the terminology changes or concepts get adjusted. Survey articles are for that, in part. Then merge options exist, also.
232:- leaving aside whether this is notable, there are no citations in the article (and haven't been for nearly 2 years). The article as it now is fails to give the general reader any kind of idea what the concept in question is, or even what the words used to describe it (compactification? blowing-up k points?). If it's to be kept it needs a lot of explanation. And citations, of course. Let's delete it.
506:, in the first three paragraphs. However, I quickly get lost in the jargon of the original paper and the Knowledge (XXG) article. Unfortunately I am not able to determine notability. Are there any other criteria to look at (for notability) besides citation numbers?. The paper appears to be about duality symmetries in string theory. This appears to be covered already in
280:. The original paper introducing this topic is by one of the leading string theorists, and is well known to experts: it has picked up about 50 references from other papers, so is notable enough for wikipedia. The other reasons mentioned above may be reasons for improving the article but are not reasons for deleting it.
350:
mysterious; after all, it appears to elude attempts at explaining it in a
Knowledge (XXG) article for years. It's so mysterious that, I reckon, the secret society of string theory physicists would have to kill us all if they told us about it; it's so mysterious that it's science's best kept secret.
399:, both of which were in the same journal. Beyond the first few hits it appears that the rest of the uses of the term are incidental, i.e. they are using "mysterious" as an adjective on "duality", not the term "mysterious duality", and have nothing to do with this construction at all. --
390:
for the term "mysterious duality" shows the arXiv e-print of the authors' paper got 45 citations, many of which were in decent journals; but (all?) of those citing articles don't seem to use the term themselves, rather they are referring to the construction
431:
journal published version in the hits? If it was simply that the cited publication date was wrong, you'd see the appearance of two peer-reviewed publications of the paper in the same journal, and most of the citations would be against the correct one.
688:
as there is no significant coverage of the duality in secondary literature. (Although I'm open to be proven wrong on the last point by somebody providing an explicit example.) This article should therefore probably not be redirected, but simply
157:
188:
As far as I can tell not notable. The fact that this duality does not have a proper name 10 year after the first publication, and that that publication has only gathered 43 citations should be an indication that its
683:
page. The term "mysterious duality" however seems to be a neologism. (I've yet to find any evidence for its usage as a term for this duality.) I would also argue that the duality as such does not meet the
118:
151:
606:
at random. One didn't mention the concept by name except in the reference. One was a passing reference. One had a sentence and a half of coverage. One shared a co-author.
259:
Well, its notability looks very doubtful, and your arguments have some weight. If the article is to remain then it needs a lot of work - cleanup, expansion, wikifying, etc.
558:
How so? It has many citations in reliable sources independently of the original paper which, I might add, itself was reliably published, and is authored by at least one
211:
294:
Are you saying that any paper with 50+ citations is notable, in the sense that it should have its own article on wikipedia? That seems a bit over the top doesn't it?
679:
and M-theory compactified on a torus. (This is what most articles citing the article "a mysterious duality" cite it for.) This probably warrants a mention on the
247:
None of those are actual reasons for deletion. The ref issue is easy enough to resolve, if the subject is deemed notable enough. (Which I think it isn't)
760:. Notability seems dubious for a stand-alone article, in particular given the neologistic quality of the title, but sufficient for inclusion there. (
411:
The peer reviewed paper was published in 2001, not 2002. Your google scholar search only shows papers citing it with the wrong publication date.
590:
So all papers by Vafa are automatically notable? More to the point can you give references that actually refer to this as "Mysterious duality"?
91:
86:
95:
396:
503:
qualify as a notable topic. The intro of the source article at least gives an explanation of what the authors are attempting to achieve
460:
78:
387:
17:
675:
As far as there is any notability in this topic, it appears to be in the observation that there is a link between the geometry of
172:
139:
436:
403:
355:
655:
639:
581:
474:
418:
373:
787:
36:
133:
744:
510:, which may make this article irrelevant. In that case I say redirect if my assessment is accuracte. Or delete if "
427:
Slawomir: the one with all the citations is the (non peer-reviewed) arXiv pre-print; so in which case, where's the
433:
400:
352:
772:
748:
727:
696:
659:
649:
643:
633:
615:
597:
585:
575:
549:
523:
478:
468:
454:
439:
422:
412:
406:
377:
367:
358:
334:
301:
289:
268:
254:
241:
222:
203:
60:
786:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
721:
328:
129:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
264:
237:
82:
447:
is the record on inspire, which automatically links the arxiv and published one. This returns 36 citations.
611:
545:
179:
740:
693:
594:
519:
451:
298:
251:
200:
193:
459:
Tristessa: Google scholar is confused. You can easily check for yourself that the references listed
717:
324:
165:
706:
313:
260:
233:
74:
66:
145:
769:
761:
680:
676:
607:
541:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
690:
591:
515:
448:
295:
285:
248:
219:
197:
190:
685:
567:
537:
504:
48:. Bu I think that on the basis on this discussion a merger would not be opposed by many.
507:
51:
629:
112:
444:
625:
563:
281:
215:
620:
Unfortunately, my own experience seems to be similar. For me the argument for
709:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
316:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
395:
the duality. The 2002 peer-reviewed publication of the same paper got only
765:
757:
467:
paper that appeared in
Advances in Theoretical Mathematics and Physics.
648:
I've notified r.e.b. for further comment. Lubos seems to be MIA.
366:. There are loads of high-quality citations in the literature.
780:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
624:
is growing substantially weaker. More expert input, from
499:
Given that this is cited by 43 or 45 other papers it may
346:. In fairness, I definitely agree that this duality is
108:
104:
100:
164:
716:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
323:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
178:
386:I don't think this is actually true, Slawomir. A
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
790:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
212:list of Science-related deletion discussions
210:Note: This debate has been included in the
209:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
220:killing the human spirit since 2003!
24:
764:is another potential target, but
196:10:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
524:05:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
479:20:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
455:16:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
440:16:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
423:12:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
407:07:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
378:02:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
359:05:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
335:00:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
302:05:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
290:15:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
269:19:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
255:17:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
242:16:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
223:15:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
204:10:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1:
768:seems more appropriate.) --
61:12:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
773:09:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
758:M-theory#Mysterious duality
749:19:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
728:00:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
697:14:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
660:18:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
644:18:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
616:19:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
602:I clicked on four of these
598:14:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
586:13:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
550:08:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
807:
514:" is a useless term. ----
783:Please do not modify it.
737:If all else fails userfy
32:Please do not modify it.
756:to the article section
574:to warrant inclusion.
566:). By the letter of
388:Google Scholar search
463:mostly refer to the
632:would be helpful.
570:, this seems to be
754:Merge and redirect
677:del Pezzo surfaces
562:on string theory (
512:mysterious duality
497:(perhaps redirect)
75:Mysterious duality
67:Mysterious duality
44:The result was
762:Del Pezzo surface
730:
681:del Pezzo surface
337:
225:
59:
798:
785:
741:Charles Matthews
724:
715:
711:
652:
636:
578:
572:more than enough
471:
415:
370:
331:
322:
318:
183:
182:
168:
116:
98:
58:
56:
49:
34:
806:
805:
801:
800:
799:
797:
796:
795:
794:
788:deletion review
781:
726:
722:
704:
650:
634:
576:
469:
413:
368:
333:
329:
311:
216:Smerdis of Tlön
125:
89:
73:
70:
52:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
804:
802:
793:
792:
776:
775:
751:
733:
732:
731:
720:
718:The Bushranger
713:
712:
701:
700:
699:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
651:Sławomir Biały
646:
635:Sławomir Biały
604:many citations
600:
577:Sławomir Biały
560:leading expert
553:
552:
529:
527:
526:
508:String duality
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
470:Sławomir Biały
457:
414:Sławomir Biały
381:
380:
369:Sławomir Biały
361:
340:
339:
338:
327:
325:The Bushranger
320:
319:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
274:
273:
272:
271:
227:
226:
186:
185:
122:
69:
64:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
803:
791:
789:
784:
778:
777:
774:
771:
767:
763:
759:
755:
752:
750:
746:
742:
738:
735:
734:
729:
725:
723:One ping only
719:
714:
710:
708:
703:
702:
698:
695:
692:
687:
682:
678:
674:
671:
670:
661:
657:
653:
647:
645:
641:
637:
631:
627:
623:
619:
618:
617:
613:
609:
605:
601:
599:
596:
593:
589:
588:
587:
583:
579:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
556:
555:
554:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
532:
531:
530:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
502:
498:
495:
492:
491:
480:
476:
472:
466:
465:peer reviewed
462:
458:
456:
453:
450:
446:
443:
442:
441:
438:
435:
430:
426:
425:
424:
420:
416:
410:
409:
408:
405:
402:
398:
394:
389:
385:
384:
383:
382:
379:
375:
371:
365:
362:
360:
357:
354:
349:
345:
342:
341:
336:
332:
330:One ping only
326:
321:
317:
315:
310:
309:
303:
300:
297:
293:
292:
291:
287:
283:
279:
276:
275:
270:
266:
262:
261:Chiswick Chap
258:
257:
256:
253:
250:
246:
245:
244:
243:
239:
235:
234:Chiswick Chap
231:
224:
221:
217:
213:
208:
207:
206:
205:
202:
199:
195:
192:
181:
177:
174:
171:
167:
163:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
135:
131:
128:
127:Find sources:
123:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
57:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
782:
779:
753:
736:
705:
672:
630:User:Lumidek
621:
608:Stuartyeates
603:
571:
559:
542:Stuartyeates
533:
528:
511:
500:
496:
493:
464:
428:
392:
363:
347:
343:
312:
277:
229:
228:
187:
175:
169:
161:
154:
148:
142:
136:
126:
53:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
626:User:r.e.b.
564:Cumrun Vafa
516:Steve Quinn
397:2 citations
152:free images
54:Sandstein
434:Tristessa
401:Tristessa
353:Tristessa
766:M-theory
707:Relisted
689:deleted.
314:Relisted
119:View log
770:Lambiam
673:Comment
494:Comment
429:correct
158:WP refs
146:scholar
92:protect
87:history
686:WP:GNG
568:WP:GNG
538:WP:GNG
536:fails
534:Delete
437:(talk)
404:(talk)
356:(talk)
344:Delete
282:r.e.b.
230:Delete
130:Google
96:delete
173:JSTOR
134:books
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
745:talk
656:talk
640:talk
622:keep
612:talk
582:talk
546:talk
520:talk
475:talk
461:here
445:This
419:talk
374:talk
364:Keep
348:very
286:talk
278:keep
265:talk
238:talk
189:not.
166:FENS
140:news
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
628:or
501:not
180:TWL
117:– (
747:)
658:)
642:)
614:)
584:)
548:)
540:.
522:)
477:)
432:--
421:)
393:of
376:)
288:)
267:)
240:)
218:-
214:.
160:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
743:(
694:R
691:T
654:(
638:(
610:(
595:R
592:T
580:(
544:(
518:(
473:(
452:R
449:T
417:(
372:(
299:R
296:T
284:(
263:(
252:R
249:T
236:(
201:R
198:T
194:R
191:T
184:)
176:·
170:·
162:·
155:·
149:·
143:·
137:·
132:(
124:(
121:)
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.