Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infrared triangle: Difference between revisions

Infrared triangle (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)

I converted this redirect to an article because its target page was an invented term about the concept rather than this article’s title and the article itself was WP:OR and largely unsupported by the citations. However, I was unable to locate sufficient source material to warrant building it out much further. In a delrev of the former target page that was kept as a redirect, it was suggested that the best course of action is to delete this. I believe this concept fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK (it is a chapter in a book) at this time. The book itself is well-cited and may warrant an article, but perhaps one concept from a chapter does not with only a single WP:RS. Revolving Doormat (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original deletion discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pasterski–Strominger–Zhiboedov triangle. Some missing context is that the term of the redirected article was invented on Wikipedia in Special:Diff/797427563 by one of many persistent WP:COI editors stonewalling the page with unsourced or poorly sourced WP:PROMO material. A history can be seen at Sabrina Pasterski. The term was added to that article in 2017, shortly after her PhD advisor published a pre-print of the book on arXiv arxiv:1703.05448, but crediting Pasterski for the work, rather than Strominger for the work. The term itself is becoming well-cited, but I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON that can remedy the issues with the redirect. Revolving Doormat (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General note when evaluating sources you find mentioning this term: this is a highly cited field and generally to be a non-trivial journal source it must be well-cited, thus it should have at least 100 citations (not including self-cites). Additionally, it should contribute information that can be summarized for the reader that is not already present in the article such as it’s not just a WP:REFBOMB. The policy of WP:NOTJOURNAL and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK apply here. Revolving Doormat (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Physics-related deletion discussions. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pasterski–Strominger–Zhiboedov triangle and the associated DRV. Whether this is too soon, or COI created citogenesis, there isn’t the sourcing needed to retain this. And for the closer in the event you’re not using XfD closer, should this close as delete, the extant redirect at Pasterski–Strominger–Zhiboedov triangle should go with it as G8. (Doormat, I don’t think you need a concurrent RfD, but I may be wrong on that.) Star Mississippi 02:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I did decide to hold on the RfD pending the outcome of this AfD. Revolving Doormat (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 04:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in attempts to save the PSZ triangle article I found no notable secondary source that would attest its importance. I found that the well-cited sources pointing to this topic are all from Strominger and no secondary source so far is well recognized.–ReyHahn (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why are these sources are not good enough[1][2][3]? The last one is a preprint, but it has been cited. Kelob2678 (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well-cited papers must have been cited at least 100 times (not including self-cites). These are nowhere near that threshold. Revolving Doormat (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Where did the threshold you provided originate from? What about this source from the article? Kelob2678 (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For me, it has been the norm I’ve seen. Here is a discussion about it:Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)/Archive 6#Citation numbers in regards to notability. Sorry, I’m unfamiliar with archive.today and based on the reading I don’t feel comfortable opening the link. A post to the original work you are asking about would be helpful. Revolving Doormat (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]