Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass dimension one fermions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Move to draft. There is consensus that while this may be a notable topic, the current content has substantial WP:COI and promotionalism problems that make notability difficult to assess. Before any recreation, the content should be reviewed and improved by independent knowledgeable editors. Sandstein 12:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mass dimension one fermions[edit]

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

Mass dimension one fermions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I became aware of this article when the page's author, User:Dharam Vir Ahluwalia linked to it from Dark Matter in what appears to be an ongoing WP:COI with regards to their research. A bit of searching did not turn up any secondary sources that discuss this theory, and the only major contributor to the page is the theory's author who has recently published a book on it. Without any reliable secondary sources, it is impossible to establish notability, and the page reads like a cross between a press release and a dump of a literature search. Parejkoj (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I came up against this and was debating nominating this myself, but didn't quite pull the trigger because I wasn't quite sure why the article was bothering me, but I agree with the nomination in broad terms. The crux of the issue is that this does not seem to have significant coverage/citations outside of Ahluwalia's own research. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the pet model of a few physicists without wider attention. --mfb (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I counted well over thirty distinct authors before I lost track if I was double-counting or not. I think thirty people is more than "a few", and 15 years of ongoing publications by this many people should constitute "significant coverage". (There are zillions of WP articles that appear to have less coverage and less attention). It seems to have legs. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Speculation and COI editing: non mainstream. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep -- One simply needs to go to Google Scholar citations to realize that there are numerous publications by respected authors in highest impact factor journals that are entirely devoted to Elko and Mass dimension one fermions. A large fraction of these examine the new fermions as viable dark matter and dark energy candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharam Vir Ahluwalia (talk • contribs) 00:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Dharam Vir Ahluwalia (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
Please give link. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Google scholar is located at [1] Using it, I find "About 196,000 results (0.08 sec)" and a giant treasure trove of "Related searches" which tells me that lots and lots of people are crawling not only over it, but lots of things related to it. Try it out Google scholar mass dimension one ferrmion. As to ELKO, I've heard of ELKO long ago; it shows up in CERN dark matter searches, and in other collider physics reports. Not sure but I think ELKO appears in several other WP articles, I'll search for that next. ... OK, Looked .. not too hard, didn't find any. Hmmm. Whatever. Then there is the googele scholar ELKO dark matter which gives more hits. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These 196,000 results have more false positives than actual hits by orders of magnitude, just go to page 5+ to check. A large range of papers use all four words somewhere but not in the context of the article discussed. With quotation marks the results reduce to ... 32. Add 85 hits for "fermions with Mass dimension one" and we have an obscure niche topic. And who publishes about it? Ahluwalia et al, Ahluwalia, Ahluwalia, Ahluwalia, Ahluwalia, de Brito et al, Lee, da Silva, Ahluwalia, Ahluwalia - notice a pattern? --mfb (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And not to be annoying about it, but clicking through randomly, I find "R. da Rocha from Dirac to ELKO" cited by 87. The article is classified as "riemannnian geometry" and "clifford algebra" as topics 1&2. Dark matter in 9th place. So I'm reminded that Weyl spinors appear in intro-to-riemannian geometry textbooks, as well some of the others you can build from them, e.g. the spin manifolds. I don't know what "flagpole" is, I assume it refers to what used to be called "penrose twistors" (the spinors on flag manifolds) (yes, that penrose, the roger guy). Classifying things is a favorite pass-time of mathematicians, so I'm actually planning on skimming this article. Could be neat. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there may be enough on "ELKO spinors" for an article to be written. I can't find any sources written for non-experts in the field, so am unable to do so myself. The article as-is seems too promotional for Ahluwalia's research; even the name (article was moved from ELKO field at request of Ahluwalia). The reference-bombing really doesn't support the useful parts of the article at all (or is Ahluwalia adding references to his own papers), so this is also largely original research. With the COI, extremely high technical barrier, and lack of non-technical references, a WP:TNT deletion would be called for even if the journal references are considered sufficient for GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been confused about wikipedia culture since about forever. If you are not sufficiently expert to be able to re-write this article yourself, then why are you voting? This threatens to become a snowball delete by people who don't seem to know what "mass dimension" is, which is kind of weird. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can't keep an article by making it too obscure for anyone to edit. If "mass dimension" is such a well-known concept, why isn't there an article at mass dimension? Or is there some other name it is at? power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After about 30 minutes, I've tracked down Scalar field theory#Dimensional analysis and scaling, but that still doesn't make sense; a particle's energy or momentum would have a mass dimension, but the particle itself couldn't. If you can't provide any sources which define this term, I strongly suggest this isn't a reasonable topic for Wikipedia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the mass dimension of a particle is just the dimension of the field in the Lagrangian. Famously, Lagrangians are only renormalizable for n=4 or less, and dirac spinors show up as m psi-bar-psi and since m=1 that means psi=3/2. The usual mass-dimension one would the the klien-gordon fields which are m^2 phi^2 so m=phi=1. These are spinless. This is something you learn in first year or two of school, and there must be 100 books on intro-to-qft that would explain this in chapter one. They invariably conclude with hand-wringing and a lament that there are so few danged choices, wishing that there were more, and then concluding that supersymmetry is the only way out from that renormalization trap. So having a mass-dimension-one fermions is ... bizarre, and seems to be an alternate route of escape from the trap. If you don't like string theory and you don't like supersymmetry, then you need to find something else, and this beast seems to be a plausible "something else". Can't be worse than some E8-something-or-other. If your criteria is "too obscure for anyone to edit", you'd have to delete 99% of physics and math articles, starting with Serre duality and finishing with infinity groupoid and Postnikov tower. What is obscure to some is clear as the light of day to others, and the goal of WP should be to provide those gateways to clearer understanding. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 07:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


May I ask how you can use personal experiences of Ahluwalia as reference without being Ahluwalia yourself? --mfb (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One learns of such teachers by oral tradition in the community, haven't you had any that you are making a comment out of the topic of discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physics96 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, OK, I'm now going to stop defending this article. I think the article is OK-ish, I've seen much much worse on WP, but I'm sorry, this last smells like a sock puppet to me. Which is not appropriate conduct. Oh well. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mass dimension one theory bring a huge comprehension about dark matter. I guess we must Focus on such fermions to deep understand the subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:18:811:2032:14be:c650:3900:70a0 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete This is a bit of a WP:TNT situation with notability concerns. There might be just enough documentation to indicate that a community has taken an interest in this topic, but that's iffy; the high density of self-citations makes that hard to evaluate. But the intensity of the COI editing makes it impossible to trust the fairness of the text we currently have. At best, we're in a "burn it down and start over" situation, and it's not entirely clear that we would have grounds to start over. XOR'easter (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone above has noted that there are well over thirty independent authors who are working in this field. Beyond citations, most of these publications are entirely devoted to the subject. I, as the founder of the subject (with Daniel Grumiller), have an invitation from Physics Reports to write a review article and Cambridge University Press has published a monograph on the subject under the title of this page. That publication was by invitation, and was published in their most prestigious series Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (https://www.cambridge.org/core/series/cambridge-monographs-on-mathematical-physics/B5B9D3A75391E59CF00429DF1A92AF65). That I am a contributor to this page should be seen as a community service. I am a scholar, not a promoter or a salesman. On the other hand the nominator of this deletion campaign is an astronomer from dark matter observatory with clear conflict of interest. It is WP's decision to keep or delete this page with consequences as I and others view Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharam Vir Ahluwalia (talk • contribs)

Of course experts are encouraged to contribute in their areas where they have knowledge; however, when their contributions are simply adding the titles of their latest research papers with no context or explanation, there are issues. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lengthy passages of bold text are difficult to read and generally seen as impolite. In the future, I would advise omitting the extraneous formatting. It is also against Talk-page etiquette to remove other editors' comments, as you did here. If you wish to withdraw a statement, you can strike it out with <del>...</del> tags. This is less disruptive to the flow of the conversation. As to the substance of your comment: publications that have not yet been published are not sources for Wikipedia's purposes, and both the forthcoming review article and the monograph are primary sources, which are not what we turn to when we build our articles. Many of us are scientists ourselves, and we do contribute as a community service. But because of the Conflict of Interest policy, we don't write about our own work. There's plenty else to do, like writing about the background knowledge that has already been well-established and that our research builds upon. Wikipedia does not try to push the scientific frontier forwards; it only follows behind as the frontier expands. XOR'easter (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some explanations are in order. There are vast amounts of effort expended in keeping nonsense out of wikipedia articles. It is not uncommon for undergraduates cramming for a mid-term exam to come in and edit some article filling it with nonsense. Another very common situation is with cranks pushing some insane theory, or autodidacts re-discovering the wheel, and attempting to create articles on the topic. It takes real work and effort to keep this under control, and so there is a bit of an immune system at work. You've triggered the immune system several ways: (1) excessive self-citations (very common with cranks, since no one else cites them) (2) use of sockpuppets during arguments (very bad no-no) (3) single-topic, single-interest editing, with little or no effort expended to improve related articles. You would have been much luckier if instead you just added some long subsection to some article about fermions, or some article on dark energy.
Immune systems being what they are, they sometimes malfunction and suffer from autoimmune disorders. There are elements of what could be called a "toxic workplace", where more energy is expended on fighting than in producing. Wikipedia culture has driven out every academic and professor that I personally know of; you'd merely be the latest in a long string. As a result, activity in the math and physics forums has hit rock-bottom. Nothing is going on, its stagnant. How to "fix that", I don't know. I have some ideas, but meh .. maybe more like mathoverflow, which is, BTW, fantastic!.. there could be better onboarding of new academic contributors such as yourself. There could be, I dunno, maybe reputational systems or maybe a peer-review system for something like this article. The problem is, for this article .. there are no peers, because the academics have all been driven out. So there. It's still a bit wild-west, here. It has not yet matured enough to address certain basic problems.
p.s. since I like to talk a lot, I would like to point out that the University system was invented by the Scholastics in the 13th century. They built something that has lasted 800 years, outlasting city, state and national governments, transitioning from agrarian society through industrialization to our post-modern world. The Scholastics achieved this by developing a system to keep out cranks and nuts, keeping out the mediocre, as well as providing an income (living wages) for professors. Tenure and all that. Wikipedia does not have such a system. It's volunteers. Unpaid, untenured. Shaky mechanisms for keeping out the unworthy. Attractive to the vainglorius. This breeds problems. Will a better, self-correcting system be found? I dunno. Welcome to wikipedia, as it exists today. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate Send it back to draft space. There are good arguments on both sides here, as they say. But, the page does not currently belong in the mainspace. User Dharam Vir Ahluwalia has a self-admitted conflict of interest (in bold above) which is not disclosed on the page and they have over 20% of the page's authorship according to xTools. I think it needs to go back to draft and run through articles for creation before coming back to the main space. Taking care to avoid original research, synthesis, conflicts of interest, advertising, poor sourcing, and (maybe most importantly) avoid WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE violations. If incubation is not an option, then my vote may be interpreted as a comment. Footlessmouse (talk) 07:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • COI and Sock puppets. Knowledge bases pride themselves when founders of a subject contribute. In the context of this thread I am one such individual -- known to many, and documented in an invited Book Review for American Mathematical Society (written by: Julio Marny Hoff da Silva) and those who are engaged in research in the field. It is my humble opinion that it is not I but the initiator of this thread who has a serious COI, and if I may add a lack of understanding of the subject. If pursuer of this field comment and they are being called sock puppet then it crosses my sense of dignity and decency, and I shall be hard pressed to contribute to Wikipedia if an appropriate apology is not extended to them. I am happy to work on this Wikipedia page under discussion but only in the spirit of a scholar and a founder of a field. I have nothing to sell or promote but only contribute as an expert in the field. If Einstein contributed and created a page on Theory of Relativity, he would have faced no less COI accusations -- or, so I think. Wikipedia needs to seriously reflect on how it treats founders and scholars, and not be self destroyed by the sort of questions and trolls it allows to enter its working space.
Please read WP:COI and WP:SOCK to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. I want to emphasize that a COI is not a judgement about your state of mind, that we cannot assess, but about the objective fact that you are writing an article about your own research. If Einstein were to write about relativity on Wikipedia he would also have a COI, and he would also be discouraged from doing it himself. Tercer (talk) 10:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Dharam Vir Ahluwalia: While your contributions anywhere else are very much appreciated, we have a process for dealing with edits to pages for when you have a COI. I encourage you to contribute to articles in which you are an expert, but you should not directly edit articles in which you are the expert or which you played an integral role in developing. You should never ever use Wikipedia to make a reference to one of your own papers. It has nothing to do with you and you should not take it as insulting: In general, founders of fields and inventors of objects are not distanced enough from a topic to write about it encyclopedically. Maybe you can, but there are still policies we need to adhere to. Also, I am fine with deletion. As I said above, the article does not belong in the main space. Footlessmouse (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I think this is the first time in my life that I have seen an article with deep WP:COI and WP:SOCK problems that is nevertheless about a legitimate topic, and would probably pass the WP:GNG on a closer inspection. The problem, however, is that as it stands the article is little more than a list of papers by Dharam Vir Ahluwalia, with terrible formatting and unencyclopedic tone. It is a clear case of WP:TNT. Tercer (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tercer, Reality Check You wish to recommend deletion of what in your own admission is a "legitimate topic" and "probably pass the WP:GNG" test "on a closer inspection". Furthermore, a little more than a list of papers by Dharam Vir Ahluwalia in your remark = Out of 57 references 10 are by Dharam Vir Ahluwalia. Yes, since I am the founder pf the subject that is to be expected. For your knowledge: Go and look at our JCAP2005 and PRD2005 papers. You will find that both announce the result as "unexpected theoretical discovery"-- spin 1/2 spinors not satisfying Dirac equation, and yet provide local and Lorentz covariant quantum field (in CUP2019 version). Decency, I thought, would have recommended stylistic improvements and given some respect to my COI and Sock puppets remark above. There is nothing that is overstated in my contribution (20%) -- yes, it is possible to be objective and still be Dharam Vir Ahluwalia. There is a limit to the COI and Sock accusations, and it has not been hidden from the moment the article came to exist. Mass dimension one fermions work is not your every day bread and butter work. It is revolutionary in nature as has been called by a reviewer for American Mathematical Society. I have done a community service and I do not deserve what is being thrown at me, and at those accused to be sock puppets. In fact this thread seems to be infected with trolls -- I say this because of the tone and accusations in this thread.
And yet, almost all of these references are simply cited in a massive list, without any context. Most of the papers that are referred to in the text are by Dharam Vir Ahluwalia. Also, I insist that you read WP:COI. That you have a COI is not an accusation, it is a fact. While you're at it, please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF as well. Calling other editor trolls and baselessly claiming that they have a COI is not in order, and only damages your case. Tercer (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"And yet, almost all of these references are simply cited in a massive list, without any context" Context is provided by the embedding text, and this style is common in High Energy Physics literature. Perhaps we have a clash of cultures. However, this is no big deal and WP and HEP cultures can be reconciled. Dharam Vir Ahluwalia (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)DharamVirAhluwalia[reply]
By the same token calling certain individuals sock puppets is uncalled for. I have made the page as a service to the community. At this stage I have no case to make. All I can do is to make specific changes that are implementable without suffering a COI clause. Having created a context I have provided several references, their titles then are sufficiently informative to be useful to the reader. As I said when I made this page that mine is a service and if Wikipedia thinks it is a conflict of interest it has to get another expert, but all experts shall have the same problem. They have published in the field, and by default WP declares them to have a COI as is the case with me. WP certainly can delete this page if it thinks it best serves the community.Dharam Vir Ahluwalia (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)DharamVirAhluwalia[reply]
Finally, how does WP ascertain that the initiator of this deletion request does not have a COI with me. Why the individuals who support his/her view are not labeled as sock puppets, while those who support me are called sock puppets -- my phrase possible troll refers to the former. These questions are natural and should be addressed here in this thread. Elsewhere in this thread someone has written "Wikipedia culture has driven out every academic and professor that I personally know of; you'd merely be the latest in a long string. As a result, activity in the math and physics forums has hit rock-bottom. Nothing is going on, its stagnant." Does Wikipedia aspire for me to be latest academic to exit, and not re-examine its policies to welcome scholars like me.Dharam Vir Ahluwalia (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)DharamVirAhluwalia[reply]
Please do not edit the comments of other contributors, as you did here. That is considered impolite, as it makes the discussion much more difficult to read and can corrupt what other contributors have to say. In response to your comment Forthcoming articles are not intended as a primary source, but only to emphasize the growing interest in the subject, I refer you again to WP:PRIMARY for what we here mean by "primary source". The mere existence of an article, invited or not, does not necessarily indicate a "growing interest" in a topic; the judgment of one editor at one journal is not the judgment of a community. Likewise, it is not sufficient that a book be published — it must be demonstrably influential. XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The mentioned edit was an inadvertent act (cut a bit too much), I have already apologized once for that in this thread. Here, I do it again: sorry, apologies. The influence of my works -- on mass dimension one fermions and ELKO -- is easily read off from Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=DlMc5CYAAAAJ&hl=en). As to Cambridge University Press monograph Mass Dimension One Fermions it has been cited 23 times since its appearance in mid 2019 and there are hundreds of paper entirely devoted to the subject of mass dimension one fermions, spread over roughly forty authors (from Europe, to Latin America, to Korea, to Canada, to India and China, and to Iran). Many of the papers are cited more than a 100 times, and some more than 50. The citing works have a combined citations that run to a very large number that I have not calculated. Dharam Vir Ahluwalia (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)DharamVirAhluwalia[reply]
  • Comment: As far as I am aware, I do not have any COI with this author or subject: I am an observational astronomer, not theoretical physicist. As well described by 67.198.37.16 above, this tripped several of my "Wikipedia immune system" sensors. If it is as important as the author says, then there should be some secondary sources (e.g. Physics Today or Scientific American articles) that cover the topic. I didn't find any on a short search, but I may not be searching with the right terms. Even some secondary sources that talk about ELKO would be useful here: I wasn't able to find those, either. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There does seem to be more to ELKO than meets the eye. I'm currently reading Eur. Phys. J. C (2020) 80:228 https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7801-5 On the generalized spinor classification: beyond the Lounesto’s classification C. H. Coronado Villalobos1,a, R. J. Bueno Rogerio2,b, A. R. Aguirre2,c, D. Beghetto3, which, to quote the first paragraphs:
"The well known Lounesto’s spinor classification is a comprehensive and exhaustive categorization based on the bilinear covariants that discloses the possibility of a large variety of spinors, comprising regular and singular spinors which includes the cases of Dirac, Weyl, and Majorana as very particular spinors. Hundreds of textbooks usually show the dual structure for the fermionic spin one-half Dirac field ... without mentioning the fact that it may not be unique ...Both questions are rarely asked in the physics literature ... The algebraic theory of spinor duals makes use of the rich and well known structure of Clifford algebras to specify all possible duals for arbitrary algebras of any dimension and space(time) signature [2]. However, when the theory of the mass-dimension-one (Elko) spinors was proposed, it was necessary to revisit some fundamental aspects of the Quantum Field Theory, such as spinorial dual theory and (a slightly modification on) the Clifford algebra basis, always aiming to retrieve physical information."
... and so I spent the last 24 hours reviewing wikipedia spinor stuff. (See my edit history; everything I've edited yesterday/today was somehow "spinor related") We've got excellent articles for spinor and Clifford algebra, mediocre ones for Dirac spinor and bispinor, appalling ones for Rarita–Schwinger equation, and, err ... jumbles like Clifford analysis which bites off more than it can chew. Dirac operators are a "big thing" in mathematics; it appears that pretty much every/anything in geometry (and I'm not kidding about "any/every") has a Dirac operator or spin connection or pin group in it, on it or under it. For example, Chapter one, titled "Foundational material" of Jurgen Jost (2002) "Riemannian geometry and geometric analysis (3rd edition)" Springer -- a popular and authoritative textbook in the "universitext" series, has 20 pages on Clifford algebras, Weyl spinors and the Dirac equation. Chapter one - 75 pages long, so that's more than a fourth of it on spinors. So I contrast that background with the extended quote above, implying that maybe we haven't even fully classified all the spinors yet, and ELKO is one of those coming out of the woodwork. ... So, what to do? I had this vague idea to figure out Elko enough to just mention it in suitable places in WP, but the current articles are jumbles or are sufficiently patchy and incomplete that this isn't possible or natural at this time. The "obvious" places to induce Elko would be in Fierz identity and C-symmetry. Note that spinors, as defined by mathematicians, have C, P-symmetry and T-symmetry quite independent of space-time; that is C, P and T have a mathematical meaning for spinors that is entirely dettached from their meaning in physics. This, too, lies in disarray in the current articles. (For these reasons, I'm still going for keep, as I said way above.) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Comment. Your request to delete this page comes across as aggressive simply because you are unable to realize what we have at hand. Since 1928 it has been assumed that spin half fields and spinors satisfy Dirac equation, here the new field is a four-component spinorial field. It is fermionic and local -- just as the Dirac field. The Dirac field has its luminosity, and at the simplest level it comes from local U(1) covariance. The mass dimension one fermions provide for dark matter what the Dirac field provides for the Standard Model of High Energy Physics. The mass dimension one fermions do not satisfy Dirac equation but spinorial Klein Gordon equation, and they do not allow covariance under SM local phase transformations. So it becomes naturally a dark matter candidate. Quartic self interaction for a Dirac field are suppressed by two powers of unification scale. For the mass dimenion one field its quartic self interaction is a dimension 4 operator. So it is not suppressed. Thus these new fields provide a very natural dark matter candidate with quartic self interaction. A quick search on the usual search engines shows numerous publications in high impact journals that provide cosmology associated with Elko and Mass Dimension One Fermions. But I won't repeat that notability argument here as it has already been covered in this thread. Cambridge University Press does not publish a monograph in its most prestigious series unless it exceeds in significance popular writeups of Physics Today, etc. It is this lack of appreciation and the aggressive nature of your action that triggered my conjecture on a COI on your behalf. I, therefore suggest, that you withdraw your request to delete this page but instead work with me to improve it. You can write to me at my private e-mail to prevent further escalation at your observatory level. Dharam Vir Ahluwalia (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)DharamVirAhluwalia[reply]
  • Draftify, or cut down substantially. I think notability is fine here; one can't argue that a field with this many practitioners has no presence in scientific discourse, even if the bunch looks somewhat incestuous. But the current state of the article is quite unsuitable for mainspace. Material like the following has no place in an encyclopedia article:
In the decade that followed a significant number of groups explored intriguing mathematical and physical properties of the new construct while Ahluwalia and his students developed the formalism further.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. ... Elko localization on the branes has been investigated in,[26][27] and.[28] The following references serve as a guide to the lively activity on Elko, and mass dimension one fermions:[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] Earlier history of Elko is summarized in references:[45][46] and.[47] How Weinberg no go theorem is evaded is explained by Ahluwalia in 2017.[48]
That's refspam at carpet-bombing levels, not encyclopedic writing. Either summarize then reference these sources, or leave them out. It seems that the main contributor is unwilling to do so, or doesn't even understand the necessity. In that case this and similar stuff should be removed, or the article should be moved out of mainspace until someone else actually does something with this material. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can do the requested but to do a decent job I'll need bit of time, say a week or two. However, it may lead into another COI issue. Please advise.Dharam Vir Ahluwalia (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)DharamVirAhluwalia[reply]
  • Draftify for now, since this is clearly a refspamed massively COI edited article that can't be salvaged to any degree in it's current state. Also, after it's worked on it should go through review before being allowed back in mainspace. Since, otherwise I think we will just be back here with it again in a few weeks. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_dimension_one_fermions&oldid=990038206"