Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photon dynamics in the double-slit experiment

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photon dynamics in the double-slit experiment

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This long personal essay is essentially unsourced, citing only general textbooks. It has had no discussion, little participation, and is unlikely to be supportable by any sources. Dicklyon (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ neutral. AfD on an interesting topic has the makings of a good article (but not a GA). It rambles and does not go very far. Physics is mainstream (as far as it goes), no crankery here. Needs improvement. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Most of the article is regurgitations of general physics topics only very tenuously connected to the double-slit experiment specifically, ~~trying desperately to impart some heft by association with noteworthy subjects - what I would call WP:TOSSINTHEKITCHENSINK (WP:KITCHENSINK is taken)~~. For example, the energy and momentum of a photon each get a subsection, but what does that have to do with the experiment? It's like starting an article about tires with a long description of what a circle is, followed by a soliloquy about the road system of the United States. There's nothing here that double-slit experiment lacks. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not commenting on the AfD, but much of the content is a duplicate of Photon polarization. Someone may wish to check what's the story with attribution, and probably delete the text here for being an unnecessary duplicate. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Complexica created both at the same size and same time. Photon polarization in Aug. 2006 and this one in Sept. 2006. Lots of text re-use for sure. Not much would be lost if we delete. Dicklyon (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. If there's anything here that might be suitable in another article, the author (who has not commented here, I note) should feel free to ask for a copy of the text - or ping me, and I'll send it over for them. Is the title a useful redirect? I'm guessing not, but would not oppose if there's consensus for it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary fork of photon polarization and double-slit experiment. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and above comments. This appears to be a collection of vignettes that are sectioned-off from various related physics articles and combined into a single article without coherent presentation. There is very little text and not much that ties these sections together under one topic. Hence, it is at least an unneeded content fork. It also poorly sourced. I also agree that this is an unnecessary fork of photon polarization and double-slit experiment. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.