Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The almost anti-symmetric gauge

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The almost anti-symmetric gauge[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This gauge is probably an interesting mathematical object but has not proved sufficient notability. I could only find three sources using Google Scholar (Wang et al PRB 2017, Su et al Scientific reports 2016, D. Ariad et al PRB 2018) with number of citations less ~~than 2~~ than 3. The article is simply WP:TOOSOON. MaoGo (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, your criteria are unclear: is it the journals' impact factor, number of articles that mention the gauge or their citation number that matter? Second, if these are the criteria so what are their weights and the threshold that must be exceeded? Third, the number of citations you mentioned is wrong (both Wang et al and Su et al are cited twice). SciKal (talk) 9:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@SciKal: Sorry I meant less or equal to 2. I do not doubt the impact factor of the journals nor the validity of what is written, yet not every research that is published in an important journal merits a Wikipedia article. The WP:NOTABILITY has to be demonstrated under sufficient coverage from second and/or third sources (like newspapers, academic textbooks or a recognizable use of this object in an important review or several papers). Wikipedia cannot decide the validity of an argument nor the prestige of it, the research has to be corroborated by non-primary sources. Check WP:SCHOLARSHIP. --MaoGo (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons stated by MaoGo. --Steve (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons that MaoGo explained above. We've no reason to doubt the validity of the research, but it's too soon to put it in an encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this may not quite violate WP:NOR if it's repeating something recently published in a journal, but the lack of citations/coverage means that notability is not met. It's not intelligible to a lay audience and is written like a journal article, not an encyclopedia article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:30, 25 October 2018 (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.