Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camelback Potential

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. Article has been completely re-written and new references have been published since I filed the AfD. I still feel a rename is necessary, but that can be discussed elsewhere. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camelback Potential (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)

Declined PROD. There don't appear to be secondary references, and I can't figure out what the term means based on the existing article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Overly complicated. WP:BEFORE = [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. So basically two papers that use the term, therfore not notable, this article has no real value to anyone, and unless substantially WP:TNTed and rewritten, it is Quantumcruft. Dysklyver 21:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 21:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No significant coverage in literature. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete I also was not able to find in-depth secondary reliable sources. The prose itself is based on primary papers and is thus original research. This magnetic configuration (essentially a local potential well) has patents associated, so this article may have some promotional aspects, too. Without independent RS, there is no independent verifiability and the article cannot stand. --Mark viking (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepAs the writer of this article, I can declare that I do not know the authors of the papers used and do not stand to benefit from their work. This phenomenon is actually rather simple to set up, requiring two diametric magnets and pencil lead, so I don't find it overly complicated. There are 3 papers that use this term, with two from the same group of authors, thus there are multiple sources. If needed, I can rewrite the article. Any constructive feedback is appreciated Jiale8331 (talk) 10:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can explain what this phenomenon is for that would be useful, I only found two papers when checking, however three papers does meet my standards so an improved article would be of use. My vote is mostly based on the fact that A. it makes no sense, what is camelback doing in the article? B. it makes no sense, wtf is a diametric magnet? C. it just makes no sense. No disrespect to the PHD physicists who do understand what this says, but Wikipedia is supposed to be a general purpose encyclopedia. Imagine we are all 5 year olds, and make a simple lead for us to know what this is about. Dysklyver 11:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, @Dysklyver. I have added a graph of the magnetic flux density, an explanation for diametric magnets and the reason behind the naming. Regarding the technicality, I think it is reasonable for readers of such a page to have a basic understanding of fundamental concepts in Physics (eg Magnetic flux, Stokes Drag)Jiale8331 (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@A Den Albeit I agree with you that Wikipedia is general purpose encyclopedia but no policy that say all its contents must be understood by all. All your 3 arguments for deleting this article (A, B, C) are invalid reasons because none has meaning and none is considered in deletion discussion. Also all your arguments should be rephrased and appended with "me" thus ("It makes no sense to me" ) this is needed so as to remove the fallacy of hasty generalization in your original statements. All hard science concepts, especially physical sciences are naturally hard to comprehend by layman, and WP guideline on Technical subjects clearly agrees that oversimplifying them (for you and 5-year-old to understand, as you said) will amount to telling lie to children and that is part of what Wikipedia is not. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This appears to be a legit scientific concept, 23 articles on Google Scholar, Scopus has 2 articles using it in the title of the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep multiple results from different sources in single search also the article has since improved much better that when it was created. Plus currently there is Draft of closely related concept that will soon be merged. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ammerpad: I am correct on this, see WP:NOT which says:

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal

7. Scientific journals and research papers. A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead (and also maybe the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.

8. Academic language. Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible.

As you see, this fails WP:NOT, until it is possible to understand. As 5 year olds are fully literate and have no specialist knowledge, they are the perfect target demographic for clear explanations. Dysklyver 19:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from WP:TECHNICAL,

Write one level down

A general technique for increasing accessibility is to consider the typical level where the topic is studied (for example, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate) and write the article for readers who are at the previous level. Thus articles on undergraduate topics can be aimed at a reader with a secondary school background, and articles on postgraduate topics can be aimed at readers with some undergraduate background. The lead section should be particularly understandable, but the advice to write one level down can be applied to the entire article, increasing the overall accessibility. Writing one level down also supports our goal to provide a tertiary source on the topic, which readers can use before they begin to read other sources about it. Not all articles need to be totally non-technical. This is a Physics concept that's likely postgraduate, thus the technicality of the article is suitable for the target audience (undergrad and above) The type of person searching up Camelback Potential is highly unlikely to be someone with no or little Physics background. I can certainly work on creating a more accessible lead but even so it is unlikely to be totally free of technicality since that would be verging on oversimplification

• Comment as nom I still strongly support deletion. The article still does not even describe what the concept is. The name merely describes the shape of a graph; there is no evidence that all references to a camelback-shaped potential are describing the same concept. Indeed, as one of the references is "Quantum" and the other is on a macro-scale, it is likely that multiple different non-notable concepts are being discussed. I believe the article functions only to promote Gunawan and Virgus. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The phenomenon is indeed named after the shape of the potential graph. As I mentioned earlier, this phenomenon is notable as it is simple to set up and comprehend. It does not require some ridiculously expensive machine or insane amounts of expertise to do correctly. @power~enwiki, Your opinion on promoting the authors occurs to me as Ad Hominem and is not particularly constructive. I have edited the definition of the phenomenon, hopefully it's now clearer. Jiale8331 (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make it notable at all. What notable means is that it has been noted by many others, and that is not the case here. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps I misused the word 'notable'. In this case, the top two papers on camelback potential, that are cited in this article, have 37 and 25 citations (according to Google Scholar). The paper with 25 citations is 2 years old, with the average number of citations for 2 year old papers being 1.94 The other paper is 7 years old and is also above the average of 11.52 citations. Hence, these papers certainly fulfills your definition of notable.

Does "Quantum Dynamics in a Camelback Potential of a dc SQUID" have anything to do with the rest of the article? Or did you just search for "Camelback Potential" and throw the first result in the article without reading it? power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm going to inform WT:WikiProject Physics about this discussion, and then refrain from any further comment. I think my opinion is clear enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article is still incredibly techincal with no obvious claim to notability, it would need over 100 citations before I would even consider citations as a factor, think WP:NPROF, citations can make a difference but there would need to be a great many more. I think this should be relisted until someone from physics can tell us what it all means. (or userifyed if we have to wait a really long time for that to happen). Dysklyver 19:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the concept may be notable due to a JScholar search, however, as physics are not my strength I am abstaining from participating. I do think the article could be tweaked to be less OR-y and more explanatory. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: An article by IBM in a format that is intended for the layman definitely meets NOTE in my books, and that it was selected by them for a physics olympiad is another. So there is no "legal" reason in that respect for a delete, and thus KEEP. That said, I would love to vote DELETE simply because of the utter horribleness of this article. The topic seems mundane, but the description is written in what can only be described as complete gibberish. Given that the IBM article exists, a rewrite is certainly possible. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to mods: This article has been completely rewritten and now meets NOTE and anything else being discussed above. I think this AfD should be speedy closed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• [10] is the IBM link (which was released after the AfD was started). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:57, 1 November 2017 (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.