Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic gravitational wave interferometric sensor Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Atomic_gravitational_wave_interferometric_sensor

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 keep. Although participation was limited, there seems to be wide (if not unanimous) agreement that the sources found by User:Spinningspark demonstrate notability. Merge or rename discussions can of course continue to occur on the article's talk page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic gravitational wave interferometric sensor

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

The article is too short and based on an old source. It's unclear whether the subject is notable, since it's nothing more than a proposed method Fedor Babkin (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I get 46 hits in Scholar which is astonishing for such a long technical phrase (in quotes). The cited paper may be old (2008), but the method was proposed again in 2011 by a slightly different set of authors [1] and by a completely different set [2]. The literature was reviewed in Physical Review D [3], and in short seems to be an active area of research. It is still current, I can see papers published in 2013 [4][5][6], this one [7] claims to have actually measured something, and from 2014 there is this ArXiv submission and something in Italian that appears to be relevant. Spinning Spark 18:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this book has a whole chapter on the subject. Spinning Spark 19:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of sources found by Spinningspark. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 12:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm surprised it was felt necessary to relist this. Just to add to the sources, there is this document and this slide show from the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts. Spinning Spark
Consensus means people agreeing on something; 2 against 1 is not a consensus regardless of the strength of the arguments. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It could have been kept; WP:VOTE values strength of argument over strength of numbers. Sadly, closers feel the need to pad such closings with reams of rules, and so most simply do not have the time. Anarchangel (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that if not enough eyes have seen the discussion, then we cannot be confident in the result. For a lightly attended AfD, the benefits of relisting outweigh any harm that may result. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. After a week of discussion still a one liner article with an obsolete source. --Fedor Babkin (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is beside the point as far as the deletion discussion is concerned. If a topic can be shown to be notable we keep the article and wait for it to be improved by someone interested. We only delete notable topics in extreme cases such as copyright violation, blatant advertising, or BLP violation. Even then, we might keep it if there is anything useful left after stripping out the unpermitted material. Spinning Spark 11:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody is able show the notability in the article itself, that's it. The links you suggest show the notablity of the method of atomic interferometry for gravity waves detection in general, but not of that particular type of sensor, unless it is proven otherwise in the article. Be careful with "this book", it's just a Ph.D. thesis. --Fedor Babkin (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not so. Four of the links on scholar [8][9][10][11] have Atomic gravitational wave interferometric sensor in the title of the paper. Many more have substantial discussion of the term in the text body. Are you claiming these are all describing fundamentally different methods? I don't think so. As for the book, Ph.D theses are considered notable here since they have been through review and are considered part of the scholarly corpus. Spinning Spark 13:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why this discussion is already 100 times larger than the article itself? If you see these links as relevant (I don't, because they show that this type of sensor has not yet been built and that competing schemes are more successful to get funds), try to improve the article. Then I will immediately revoke this nomination. --Fedor Babkin (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely irrelevant that the technique has not actually been used, that there are better funded techniques, or even if it doesn't work at all. The only thing that matters at RFD is that reliable sources are talking about it. Please don't quote WP:FIXIT at me, it is also highly irrelevant whether or not I am prepared to work on the article. ...and the reason this is a 100 times longer than the article is because you keep disputing with me -:) Spinning Spark 15:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Gravitational-wave detector#Interferometers. Although Spinningspark has done a great job finding sources, this method is still pretty much in the proposal stage. The section on interferometers would provide context and would serve the subject better than a stand-alone article for now. The method could also be mentioned in atom interferometer. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2014 (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.