Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond the Standard Model
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 of the debate was speedy keep, as the nomination is incorrect; this is not original research, and a name change is more properly a topic for the talk page. In the future, you can check in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics if you believe an article may be original research but aren't sure. SCZenz 06:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be original research, and in any case the article name is faulty. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't pretend to know what the heck this article is about, but if it's not original research, then the tone needs to be changed from that of an instructional manual to something more encyclopedic. --djrobgordon 08:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For now, I suggest keep; it's got some summaries of stuff I have seen elsewhere in depth in physics literature, and is a good overview for aspects of the problems with the standard model. I think it appears to be straddling the line out towards original research, but isn't clearly over it. It clearly needs references, some cleanup, and to be made more encyclopedic in sections. But those are cleanups, not AfD justification. AfD is not a substitute for cleanup tags. Georgewilliamherbert 08:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Georgewilliamherbert. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per my assumption that GWH knows what he's talking about :) . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is certainly not original research! It is a summary of well known ideas about physics beyond the standard model. There is also nothing faulty about the article name at all. It is good to see professional physicists taking the time to write articles here at wikipedia. We don't need to boot them out by removing their articles here. This article fits well into the category of articles on fundamental physics here in wikipedia. An article of this sort was actually needed. It's a bit technical, but this article will be linked from articles about the standard model, supersymmetry etc. to give the motivatons for physics beyond the standard model. Count Iblis 00:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No original research (but should include some references). Could very well grow into a nice article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The tone implies original research, but it most definitely is not. — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This isn't my field, so I don't pretend to understand the article in detail but I think it's a sincere attempt which just needs some editing to make it more encyclopedic. Alison Chaiken 03:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — The text part looks legit to me and covers several issues I read recently. I can't begin to know whether the formulae are accurate or even representative. Hopefully they will be clarified at some point. :-) — RJH 04:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above, and let me additionally note that that the article title is perfectly appropriate. "Physics beyond the Standard Model" is an extremely common phrase, for which Google estimates 241,000 hits. Melchoir 04:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then shouldn't the title be "Physics beyond the standard model" (notice case as well)? --Nlu (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Standard Model is usually (perhaps even always) capitalized in physics, as it refers to a specific model. Adding "physics" to the title is fine with me. If the "beyond …" is considered to be too unencyclopedic, perhaps we can use Extensions of the Standard Model? But I'd prefer to have somebody who really understands this stuff to choose the title (that is, not me). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, Physics beyond the Standard Model actually sounds more professional. I think "beyond" is just as encyclopedic as "Standard"; the word is entrenched in modern usage. Melchoir 05:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Standard Model is usually (perhaps even always) capitalized in physics, as it refers to a specific model. Adding "physics" to the title is fine with me. If the "beyond …" is considered to be too unencyclopedic, perhaps we can use Extensions of the Standard Model? But I'd prefer to have somebody who really understands this stuff to choose the title (that is, not me). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per all above. Needs cleanup, but valuable. Karol 15:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not original research. In fact, everything in this article is fairly well known in the community. And "Beyond the Standard Model" is the standard name for it. I am writing this article because it had been in the request page for quite some time and no one else had created this article. QFT 17:45, 6 March 2006 (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.