Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extended theory of gravity Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Extended_theory_of_gravity
- 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. Page moved to Extended theories of gravity, undue weight noted regarding Hernández et al work. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Extended theory of gravity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks the independent notice necessary for notability in the sciences. jps (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- arXiv:1307.4523
looks plenty independant to me... The main problem seems to be that this article gives undue weight to Hernández et al. The original papers are also published in reputable journals, and decently cited. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- The paper you cite is on an ostensibly different (that is to say, broader) subject. We already have articles on the notable topics such as Alternatives_to_general_relativity and f(R) gravity. This particular flavor of theoretical extensions, if deemed relevant, can be added at those places. jps (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- A merge to f(R) gravity is something I might support. The Hernandez version may still be notable on its own, but merging into the main article would seem to make more sense at this point. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sure: why not? Porting usable content might be okay. There's no reason why F(R) ~ R^(3/2) can't be discussed. But I don't think a redirect of this particular title to f(R) gravity makes any sense considering that the proper article should be on a class of theories and not give any particular deference to a single one. jps (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- A merge to f(R) gravity is something I might support. The Hernandez version may still be notable on its own, but merging into the main article would seem to make more sense at this point. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- ArXiv is an author-submitted repository. Anything found there is effectively 'self-published' and does not qualify as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. At least as written, this article makes it appear like just one person's pet theory, and all of the published (as opposed to just deposited) citations are from the same research group, with no published third-party discussion of this theory. Agricolae (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- All the references given, except arXiv:1307.0777 , are published works in reliable peer-reviewed venues. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sheesh! Then why are we citing them only as ArXiv? Where are the journal or book names, volumes and page numbers? (Some of them have now been added, but refs 3, 6, 7 & 9 are still lacking in some or all of this critical information.) That doesn't change the fact that nobody seems to have taken notice of this - only the last reference is independent of the Mendoza group, and in a 16-page review of Extended Gravity, it only cites their work for the sentence, "On the other side, it is necessary to look for correlations among the investigated quantities in order to frame some fundamental empirical relationships, such as the Tully-Fisher relation, within Extended Theories of Gravity." That this passing reference in some manner establishes this one group's work as the lone, sole notable "Extended theory of gravity", to the exclusion of the work in the other 100+ references cited by the same review, is completely unsupportable. In fact, it is hard to AGF when faced with a page that ignores the work of all but one research group while citing a review that includes over 100 articles from other groups. Agricolae (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- "Then why are we citing them only as ArXiv?" See WP:WIP. The lesson here is don't dismiss stuff solely because it's on the arxiv. As for the missing information, I've added it, although that was hardly "critical", since the DOIs were there, there was more than enough informations to find the articles. Ref. 9 is in production, so page numbers don't exist yet. The rest of the criticism is valid, however. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Here I would have said that the lesson is that if all you only cite a non-RS and leave it to the reader to figure out an RS version exists (or bury the RS in a DOI at the end of the footnote with no indication in the text of the note itself), the reliability of the material is likely to be undervalued. Agricolae (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- "Then why are we citing them only as ArXiv?" See WP:WIP. The lesson here is don't dismiss stuff solely because it's on the arxiv. As for the missing information, I've added it, although that was hardly "critical", since the DOIs were there, there was more than enough informations to find the articles. Ref. 9 is in production, so page numbers don't exist yet. The rest of the criticism is valid, however. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sheesh! Then why are we citing them only as ArXiv? Where are the journal or book names, volumes and page numbers? (Some of them have now been added, but refs 3, 6, 7 & 9 are still lacking in some or all of this critical information.) That doesn't change the fact that nobody seems to have taken notice of this - only the last reference is independent of the Mendoza group, and in a 16-page review of Extended Gravity, it only cites their work for the sentence, "On the other side, it is necessary to look for correlations among the investigated quantities in order to frame some fundamental empirical relationships, such as the Tully-Fisher relation, within Extended Theories of Gravity." That this passing reference in some manner establishes this one group's work as the lone, sole notable "Extended theory of gravity", to the exclusion of the work in the other 100+ references cited by the same review, is completely unsupportable. In fact, it is hard to AGF when faced with a page that ignores the work of all but one research group while citing a review that includes over 100 articles from other groups. Agricolae (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- All the references given, except arXiv:1307.0777
- The paper you cite is on an ostensibly different (that is to say, broader) subject. We already have articles on the notable topics such as Alternatives_to_general_relativity and f(R) gravity. This particular flavor of theoretical extensions, if deemed relevant, can be added at those places. jps (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep this Physics Reports review on Extended Theories of Gravity runs to 160 pages and this solid secondary source shows that this class of theories is notable. The main problem with the article is that it gives undue weight to a small, recent subset of these theories. While a NPOV is a problem to be fixed, it is a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and an article with surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Extensions to general relativity would be a fine article. It would not be under this title. jps (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Merge content to f(R) gravity or alternatives to general relativity. Subject matter seems to be real scientific theory and encyclopedia should cover MOND-variants, variants of f(R) etc. if they are published in real journals like this one seems to be. But the title of article falsely conveys to readers this to be The Extended Theory of Gravity while in truth this is just one of many recent proposed alternatives/extensions to general relativity, and not that well-known or established. jni (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep and Merge Improvement of this page info will be properly made if there is a place to work it out. Eventualy, an "Extended theories of gravity" page will be needed where this and other theories can be well classified. Meanwhile, F(R) seems a fair choice. Editting assistance will be needed to prevent WP:COI. Thanks for the updates, interest and support! I'm the article's creator.----Hipatia (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
MergeInteresting topic, with available references, but is more suited to a section of a pre-existing article, such as alternatives to general relativity. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)- Keep Considering the changes made to generalize this page, I've changed my position to keep. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Change title Let this be the page for Extended Theories of Gravity... in general. Add introduccion, Be F(X)=X3/2 one of them. Add link from classification allready in Recent alternative theories in Gravitation page. I still don´t have the know how with the math typing in WP, help with this is much appretiated.Hipatia 15:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Hipatia
- Keep and change title, per User:Hipata, and User:Mark viking. As indicated above throughout the discussion, this particular article appears to be a specific case of the more general concept, or concepts, of "Extended Theories of Gravity" based on the article linked by User:Mark viking above. Here is the link again.
- I agree with Mark, that this is a solid secondary source and shows notability for the topic "Extended Theories of Gravity". In fact, there is a copy of this article at arxiv.org, in PDF format. So this article, combined with fleshing out some of its referenced articles,
seen as helpful for such an article on Wikipedia,appears to be a simple task.
- As an aside, I haven't had a chance to correlate the references with this article, but if two, three, or four suppport this particular article, then keep this article too, but change that title also. If not then merge. As Headbomb pointed out, most all of the references are in peer reviewed publications. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I wrote an introduction on top of the existing text using the reference first mentioned by Mark viking. It's probably pretty rough, it gets the general idea across, but the reference gets technical enough where I have to spend time doing a bunch of background reading - and I just don't have the time. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- If the page gets kept under the more general name, it needs to be TNTed. As has been pointed out, it was written as if only one group is doing all the work on the subject. This will invariably give undue weight to that group's work even when the article is expanded to include that of others. It needs to be pared back to the basics of the general topic, then rewritten with balanced coverage of all the research. Agricolae (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- I changed the wording a bit to reflect that the results produced by Mendoza, S.; Hernandez, X.; Hidalgo, et al; published in the 7 or 8 references of the (now) second section, is a specific case of "Extended theories of gravity". Also, Headbomb and I have added four references to this article that cover the general topic of "Extended theories of gravity", which have very decent citation rates (see Google Scholar). Two of these references are in the new "further reading" section. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- If the page gets kept under the more general name, it needs to be TNTed. As has been pointed out, it was written as if only one group is doing all the work on the subject. This will invariably give undue weight to that group's work even when the article is expanded to include that of others. It needs to be pared back to the basics of the general topic, then rewritten with balanced coverage of all the research. Agricolae (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Unsure. Can we leave this up at AfD a few more days, so we can read and digest it? Bearian (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per Mark viking. A move is possible. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- 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.