Physics
- Martin Spang Olsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLPSOURCES. LogosUnspoken (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, History, Religion, Physics, and Denmark. LogosUnspoken (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
- Delete or Draftify. Completely unsourced with masses of promo claims. Independent of whether he is notable, pages like this do not belong, and claims at the last dePROD that there are sources on a different language wiki are irrelevant. If someone does a WP:HEY rescue by adding sources OK, but the awful WP:BLP violations are not acceptable; all unsourced material must be removed.Ldm1954 (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
- List of streets at CERN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NLIST, and Wikipedia is not a directory of street names at a particular place. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:18, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. None of the streets have their own pages, the only notability is the people after whom they are named. I am dubious about whether having a street named after them really contributes to their notability. As the nom has said, this is not a directory. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
- Some ten years back my ambition was indeed to create a separate page for each of the CERN streets. However, at the time the Wikipedia community advised that this should not be done—it was better to have the CERN streets described in a compiled list. I am not sure if I am able to retrieve that discussion, but I can make an effort if you think it is of interest.
- ~~~ Bibliophilen (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe it would be a compromise to embed this list in the CERN page? I would say it is of interest for people outside CERN as it shows whom the Organization deems as notable enough to dedicate a street name to them. Especially when new names are added, it is a symbolic gesture showing support for certain groups of scientists: https://home.cern/new-street-names-at-cern-honour-distinguished-figures/ ). Alpaca95 (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
- This is of course a possibility. However, I note that Wikipedia has its own category of list of lists of streets: Category:Lists of streets, so I do not really understand the issue brought up by Ldm1954.
- ~~~ Bibliophilen (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator and WP:DICT. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
- I would not delete it as a service to public history: The CERN site sees many visitors today getting curious on who are the people behind the names. The street names are dedicated to key figures in physics. STANDPROFILE (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
- Bessel moment polynomial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Page describing his own work published directly in main by the author a few days after it was published in a journal The only source cited is the authors work. In a quick search the only paper I found with a comparable title is on a different topic. Fails WP:GNG, plus being WP:REFSPAM and a violation of WP:COI policy. Since author objected to a PROD now go to AfD. Note: a WP:HEY rewrite might be plausible , but I doubt it. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Mathematics, and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
- I did a bit more searching, and I also can't find any other sources about this specific topic.
- It seems like a good faith contribution by someone who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. I wonder if there's a better way to communicate to authors like this that their expertise is wanted for improving Wikipedia, but they should focus on summarizing other people's work rather than making pages about their own niche research papers. –jacobolus (t) 19:08, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
- They have made a few edits dating back to 2013, when they wrote an autobiographical article. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
- Delete agree with all of above, seems to be a rewrite of the author's paper, and given that lack of sources I doubt it can be anything more than that. AlphaBetaDeltaLambda (αβδλ) 21:50, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. With apologies to the author for the time they've wasted here, Wikipedia is not the right place to cite your own research (WP:COI), let alone your own just-published research (WP:TOOSOON).
I did notice that the key formula (equation 15) in the paper explains and generalizes the final formula in Bessel function#Sums with Bessel functions (added by a different editor two years ago). However, as a tertiary source, we cannot cover this new result until it has received significant coverage by multiple independent secondary sources (WP:GNG). Even then, it would compete with many other results in our condensed treatment of the subject. At present, we don't even cover the Bessel function summation theorem (ref: Gradshteyn and Ryzhik) from which the 'well-known identity' used in the paper is derived. Preimage (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
- NB. I've just edited the Bessel function article to add Graf's addition theorem (adapted from fr:Fonction_de_Bessel#Propriétés des Jn), explicitly mention Neumann's addition theorem (already in enwiki but previously unnamed), and link to the Lerche–Newberger sum rule. That doesn't change the fact that we can't cover these new results without secondary coverage (e.g. standard reference books or papers or NIST's Digital Library of Mathematical Functions). Preimage (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
- Linda Walsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Created by a single purpose editor. I believe she fails WP:PROF. Also an orphan article and reasonably common name, so many namesakes found in searches. LibStar (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Physics, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. This article does not meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NBIO. Aneirinn (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Not just a single purpose editor, but a single purpose editor with almost the same name as the subject. I don't see anything that adds up to notability. Athel cb (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable, article created by herself. MitYehor📘^talk 11:33, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
- Comment The case is not as clear as claimed by the nom or others above -- a proper WP:BEFORE was not done. I quickly found her Scopus metrics (now added to the page) which shows an h-factor of 30. This is high enough that a proper analysis is needed to check if this is a high or low citation area. I will try and do this later today, although someone knowledgeable in the area may get there first. I have also updated the projects and will add Medicine to the areas shortly. For the moment I am not voting.Ldm1954 (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
- Weak Keep I added a GS search on her with "Zurich" added, and checked her co-authors. They fall into two classes, most of them have a lower h-factor, although a small number work in wider areas so have h-factors more in the range of 60 or more. From this I conclude that she works in a relatively low citation area. Given that Scopus is normally lower than GS I think she just about passes WP:NSCHOLAR#C1. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related AfD discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
- Weak keep on NACADEMIC per Ldm. Some authors can be the expert on their specialty and nonetheless operate in such an esoteric field that they're cited once every 50 publications in the sub-field. Doesn't mean they're any less important to discuss.
- CSGinger14 (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Weak keep based on what's available. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:41, 22 October 2026 (UTC) - Delete. Fails NACADEMIC, it being created by a single purpose author as an orphan page also doesn't help. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
- Comment that she may have created the article in 2016 and made one edit in 2021 are not valid reasons to delete, neither is that the page is an orphan. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
- Plus the claims that the page is an orphan are incorrect, it was de-orphaned in 2024. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
- The main push of the delete argument is that it fails NACADEMIC and NBIO, that it was created by a single purpose account is secondary to this. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 11:39, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
- Launch angle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I propose draftifying because the current article reads like a dictionary and as it pertains to fiberoptics and electromagnetics, it appears non-notable and only cites one source. However, I think as it pertains to sports such as golf and baseball it may actually be notable, though it will need work which I can take care of. This is also what the majority of the online articles referencing launch angles are talking about. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 12:34, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: My first instinct is that it looks like a DAB page. WP:DAB says [...] there is more than one existing English Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. I did find a few academic papers (and the Standard cited on the page, of course) using the term in the optics context, so it's not unreasonable that a person can search for them.
- Maybe we can fold the current three sentences about optics into their respective articles and link to those sections, then also link to a Launch angle (sport) or Launch angle (projectile motion) page of sorts. LkL-70547 (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- That's a good point, although it'd be good have some more secondary sources if possible. I'll support that as long as the sourcing is adequate for a separate article. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 15:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- A properly dab-ified version of this page could link to Glossary of baseball terms#launch angle, at least for now - I haven't thought about it before, but I'd guess there would be enough sourcing out there for someone to write a full article on it, or at least an expanded section in Statcast. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 23:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Perhaps for now we redirect to the glossary, and maybe get a Launch angle (projectile motion) started rotting in Draft namespace, and if it gets up to publishable, we turn the redirect into a DAB. With regards to putting that sourcing somewhere, we could write an expanded section of Statcast (and if it gets too big we split it off), but I'm worried that would fit in awkwardly with the current article layout. If we can't figure out where it'd go, we could draftify that too, perhaps. I also think if the sourcing is sparser than I hope (which, alas, seems to be the case often), I could still thicken out that definition in the glossary a little, because it's looking short even with regards to other entries on the page. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 02:54, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Comment We do not need sourcing for dab pages, and this in effect is a dab page. But so far the term is not mentioned in optics pages. Oppose draftification as too old, also not in favor of a redirect as the term is used outside of a sports context. So if not fixed, delete. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:03, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
- Comment Can this not be solved by simply adding that sourcing and definition to the optics page? I'll admit I haven't actually looked past the page / proposal, the former of which appears pretty cleanly to have been intended as a DAB, but if the sourcing is correct then it's an extremely simple fix, so I don't see why we're looking at deletion as a necessary failsafe.
- CSGinger14 (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
- It wasn't intended as anything. In the early days of Wikipedia editors imported a public domain telecommunications glossary (it's referenced at the bottom of the article). This gave us a jump start on article creation: a couple thousand stub articles that hyperlinked to each other. Over time most of those stubs were either expanded or merged. This one didn't go anywhere, partly because there are several different definitions of the term. --Srleffler (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
- I'm ambivalent about what to do.--Srleffler (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
- Same honestly. Technically, per WP:SPEEDY, if we consider it a DAB, it should be redirected to the sports term glossary. However, I agree with Kelob2678 it doesn't really qualify as the primary topic. Is it possible we could merge the optics section into another article (e.x Glossary of physics, however that glossary currently only contains other articles) and then make it a working DAB? 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 01:19, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
|
- Sourcing is not at issue. All of it is sourced to Federal Standard 1037C, as indicated at the bottom of the page.--Srleffler (talk) 05:33, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
- There are also a number of sources available for the baseball-specific version. Rlendog (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:14, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support draftifying since the article is basically just a definition at this point, and doesn't have a reliable and independent source. Cortador (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
- The entire article except the baseball reference is sourced to Federal Standard 1037C, which is a reliable and independent source.--Srleffler (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
- Delete: per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. 🦅White-tailed eagleTalk to the eagleStalking eagle 15:55, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Archived discussions (starting from May 2019) may be found at: