Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conduction zone

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conduction zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This page is original research based on unpublished article "Unified Theory of Low and High-Temperature Superconductivity" written by User:Jerry Z. Liu, the original author of this page. The unpublished article itself is crackpot science. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The content of this page is almost identitical to this page, which is a paper (not peer-reviewed) by no one else but "Liu, Jerry Z. Ph.D." according to the website. I consider this a major violation of Wikipedia's rules. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That page has been copied from Wikipedia and perhaps modified. The references still contain links to wikipedia and there is even a See also section. It is not clear that there is a violation. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Notifications left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electrical engineering and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are so many reasons for deletion that it's hard to pick one: original research, self-promotion, lack of sources, lack of notability, crackpottery... Tercer (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The term "conduction zone" is used in only one unpublished personal web page reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjbarton (talk • contribs)

• Speedy delete per G12, obvious copyright violation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please list the material you think is in violation of copyright. I did not see any. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Virtually the entire article is copied verbatim from the link provided by TheLoneLyPanther. That website's content is not loaded by Earwig. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Seems like this reason to delete would be easily worked around. But there are others. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, speedily if possible, for any or all of the smorgasbord of reasons provided above. XOR'easter (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. OR, self-promotion, notability, copyvio. (I doubt crackpottery directly violates any WP guidelines.) Maproom (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:FRINGE is the relevant guideline for crackpottery. But it is mostly an elaboration of WP:OR, WP:N and other fundamental policies. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fringe is an assessment of notability. "Crackpot" assumes a judgement of ideas, which we should avoid. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And we never say "crackhead". --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  According to the guideline we may use judgement and label the theories as ‘bogus’. See WP:FRINGE/PS. I’d argue that the case is clear enough here, with big claims of this being a “theory of everything”. Also, the theory does not originate from the physics community so WP:FRINGE/ALT does not apply. But I agree that crackpot is a nasty word, and I could have used the word pseudoscience instead. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. OR, self-promotion Constant314 (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per clear guidelines and consensus.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per comments above. A classic case of why notability requirements help filter unreliable articles.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a very ambitious unified theory of superconductivity sourced only from the author's personal webpage (WP:OR). Sources cited like Ashcroft and Mermin have plenty of discussion about the conduction band and the Brillouin zone, but they definitely don't discuss a "conduction zone". 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 22:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as junk science. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. There is original research and some parts are unsourced, which is detrimental especially for a scientific article. Also, most of the contents covered in this article are covered in other articles. HarukaAmaranth (話) 00:03, 10 August 2023 (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.