Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reciprocal Field Theory

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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 author requested deletion JohnCD (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reciprocal Field Theory[edit]

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

Original research with respect to the mentioned work of László Hajdú (the apparent author of this article), and lacking secondary sources and non-notability with respect to the work of Jan Rayski. -- Crowsnest (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This strongly looks like original research. Maybe there is a place for this at Wikiversity? Nageh (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ This is very interesting and important encyclopedic information. I will try to work on it when I spare time. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly non-notable. The only reliable source I can find is J. Rayski (1951). "On the Reciprocal Field Theory". Proceedings of the Physical Society. Section A. 64: 657. doi:10.1088/0370-1298/64/7/107. and J. Rayski (1951). "On the Quantum Theory of Reciprocal Fields and the Correspondence Principle". Proceedings of the Physical Society. Section A. 64: 957. doi:10.1088/0370-1298/64/11/301., the last of the two being cited once by the first. There's another RFT in electronics, which is unrelated to this one (and which seems equally non-notable). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note from the editor of article. This article is an extended version of my original research that just has been completed for publication. Parallel to this, it will be exposed to the new homepage www.rft.hu which is not yet finished. About me: I am a geologist – geophysics in Hungary and I work as an independent adviser. I strongly recommend to read it thougtfully because RFT is the only theory uniting interactions without interal contradictions. It is my first contribution in Wikipedia that’s why my internal communication is clumsy.--Laszlohajdu (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many people make the mistake of thinking that Wikipedia is the place to publish new research in the field. By far and large, it's actually quite the opposite, see Wikipedia:Original Research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Note that this discussion isn't concerned with whether your work is good/bad science, so if it's deleted, don't think it's a rejection of your work. It might very well be true that RFT is the only theory uniting interactions, or maybe it's not, but will serve as a stepping stone to other advances in sciences. Maybe it's just something that no one will notice or bother with, or maybe it's just dead wrong. But the place for this debate is within physics journals, rather than on Wikipedia. When RFT is subject to an independant review article in a top journal, then it will be ready for Wikipedia. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OR per comment of article editor.T R 08:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~ This is not a new theory, and neither is a new research. This study began almost one hundred years ago. ("gigolo" results) I was thinking of "wikifing" that article, but given the way things are going in this discussion, I have no intention of wasting my time. This is a pity. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. You are absolutely right, I ran ahead changing the order and I place this article before publication. I was not patient. What is the ’Normal’ procedure to remove this article?--Laszlohajdu (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're pretty much looking at it right now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. There is also WP:SPEEDY G7. If the sole author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. --Kkmurray (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2011 (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.