User:Ace111

MediaWiki version 1.45.0-wmf.5 (3c4d177).

Wikipedia:Babel

ru

Русский — родной язык этого участника.

en-4

This user can contribute with a near-native level of English.

de-2

Dieser Benutzer hat fortgeschrittene Deutschkenntnisse.

fr-1

Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau élémentaire de français.

Search user languages

This user is a bot owner. His bot is Acebot (talk · contribs).

This user runs a bot, Acebot (contribs). It performs tasks that are extremely tedious to do manually.

This user has created a global account. Ace111's main account is on Wikipedia (in Russian).

Википедия
Я вношу вклад в русскую Википедию.

I support the Russian-language Wikipedia with my contributions.

This user is from the planet Earth.

This user enjoys the
Picture of the Day.¤

This user contributes using Firefox.

Picture of the day

Igor Stravinsky

Photograph credit: Bain News Service; restored by MyCatIsAChonk

Edits Count / Contribution Tree , Plot ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Top 10 Greatest Wikipedias

English	Sinugboanon	Deutsch	Français	Svenska	Nederlands	Русский	Español	Italiano	Polski
7,010,220	6,117,588+	3,024,930+	2,691,240+	2,611,422+	2,190,030+	2,050,478+	2,041,842+	1,922,847+	1,660,967+

More than 65,089,654 articles in all Wikipedias

Slavic Wikipedias have 8,406,953 articles.

Russia

Drozd BB rifle

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

No reliable secondary sources discovered (at least in English, and I'm unable to search for any Russian ones competently). Relies on a single primary source from the company. No other evidence of notability found, written as fancruft. jellyfish ✉ 20:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys and Russia. jellyfish ✉ 20:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Searched for Russian sources using google new and google books ( [1], [2]. There is a topwar.ru article with SIGCOV, but it's blacklisted. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 06:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Draftify- seems this item is well known in Air Gun Circles, but have yet to see enough SIGCOV at least in english sources, this maybe the closest? aside from sellers of the product. suggesting draftify as ATD, for anyone more familiar into Russian sites and Airguns to build up article.Lorraine Crane (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Vlora incident

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

WP:HOAXy framing as a battle when the Soviets simply withdrew under diplomatic pressure and harassment of their sailors. The most violence described in a recent news article is that an Albanian sailor tore a Soviet flag. [3] All the life.ru article cited here says is "портили имущество, каждый день скандалили с советскими моряками, провоцируя их на драки и ссоры и буквально гадили на крыльце комендатуры." ("they damaged property, quarreled with Soviet sailors every day, provoking them to fights and arguments, literally on the porch of the commandant's office.") The claim that Soviet vessels were fired upon is not to be found in the life.ru article and thus fails WP:V. Thus, I would conclude that this article is a kind of WP:SENSATIONAL WP:CFORK, and there is nothing about the Soviet's withdrawal that can't be adequately summarized at Albanian–Soviet split and Pasha Liman Base. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

ANTHM

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

Fails Wp:GNG, Wp:MUSICIAN, and lack of WP:SIGCOV. Zuck28 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Poetry, Music, Ethiopia, Germany, Russia, United States of America, New York, and Texas. Zuck28 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Sambalut

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

Procedural nomination. Turtlecrown came onto my talk page demanding to know why I tagged this stub as "sources exist". After answering by finding two good, albeit passing, reliable sources, I also explained my process why I won't work on sourcing locations anymore, but haven't gotten a reply yet. I'm leaving it up to the community to decide what to do with this stub that has been unsourced for 15 and 1/2 years, without any subsequent content or similar improvements, and also if you want me to continue to source locations or not, because I'm getting a lot of negative feedback and to be blunt I'm tired of wasting my time. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment I see plenty of books and academic sources that at least mention its founding. I don't know if there's any more in-depth discussion in the literature of the location, but it seems like it meets geographic historical location requirements. Silver seren^C 23:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment - will vote later. I'm looking at Google Scholar and saw 6 results of which 4 are false positives (discussing Hinduism from an Indonesian context, the Dayak people of Indonesia, or simply a typo). From the other two sources, the first source says: the towns founded by the Khazars, after conquering Transcaucasia, received the names of Samiran, Samsakly, Sambalut, Samakha, Samkalako, and others. and . In the Khazar language, as in many other Turkish dialects, the word sam means "top," "high," or "main,' and was used as a name for many towns. The second source directly references the first source, so there is no additional information. This is very little information. I will have to further review Google Books and other areas. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- There's nothing on Google News, nothing on TWL, nothing on Newspapers.com. Looking at Google Books there are several more false positives regarding the Dayaks of Borneo, Indonesia; another false positive along the Nile river in Africa; there is a map that Google says supposedly mentions Sambalut along with a whole host of other places but I can't decipher the map (you are welcome to try), there's a third and fourth and fifth and sixth and seventh and eighth and ninth (including duplicates) sources that discuss Sambalut but most probably they say nothing more than the first source above (you see they also mention Samakha, Samiran etc). There are several more inaccessible sources that are probably false positives. There's also a German source but I can't read German, perhaps I should ask a German editor, but maybe it's a false positive also that the actual word may be "Sambalu". starship.paint (talk / cont) 03:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  - At this point, if the German source is not substantive, we should probably delete this article. We can simply mention Sambalut in the Khazars article. I don't think it should be a redirect due to the usage related to Dayak people and other Indonesian content. starship.paint (talk / cont) 03:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  - I see only the first page of the source, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
    - One thing we might want to try and find out first is how Sambalut is spelled in Turkish or Arabic and see if sources show up when those names are searched. Since it's not like we would expect much of the academic coverage to be in English. Silverseren^C 04:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
      - That German book from 1576 mentions Sambalut in a chapter which describes (or purports to describe) Tartary. Paraphrasing: There is the province of Tangut (!) – which provides the world supply of rhubarb – and the land of Cataio (Cathay) with the city of Sambalut, 20 Italian miles in circumference according to Niccolò de' Conti, or 32 miles according to Marco Polo. The city is of a rectangular layout with castles at each corner. Make of that what you will . -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
        @Michael Bednarek: - greatly appreciate your translation. I am now more confident that the German source is a false positive as well. de' Conti and Polo were born after the end of the Khazars. It is highly unlikely that Sambalut would ever have been considered to be in China. Observing the German source closely, line eight of that paragraph, and the fourth last line of that paragraph, clearly write "Sambalu" and not "Sambalut". starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
        
        Sure, you can try that, Silver seren. I used Google Translate, no change of name when in Turkish, name changed to سامبالوت in Arabic, and nothing found for سامبالوت in Google Scholar/Books/News/Search. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
        The Turkish and Arabic Wikipedia articles for the Khazars are short. I don't think Sambalut is mentioned there. The Khazar English Wikipedia article says no indigenous records in the Khazar language survived. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
        
        I found a better version of the map I mentioned above. It shows Europe upside down though. Okay so from staring at the map, there's a drawing of a man at the bottom left. Above his head and to the right, is a black dot with the black name "Samarchat". Maybe that's Sambalut. Either way, not enough information to go on. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete based on what I've found above. Not enough information to pass WP:GNG and this is a word used in other languages or referring to other places. I'll just include what I found in the Khazars article (done!). Ping me if there's anything that came up in other language sources and I will reconsider my vote. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Delete -- An admirable effort undertaken to identify available sources, but unfortunately too little outcome to meet GNG. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Thank you, especially Starship.paint and Cielquiparle, to allay my concerns. In the meantime, I've gone back to working on sourcing geography stubs. Bearian (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Others

Draft

Shortcuts

Science

Balanced force

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

New page reviewer said:

I was very tempted to move this page to draft as failing WP:TEXTBOOK with too much mild WP:Peacock and some WP:SYNTH, for instance including Newton's first law. Instead I did a quick clean. It may well still end up being challenged either with a PROD or at AfD because it is not fundamentally different from other, existing mechanics articles which are more extensive.

Creator is now indef blocked, so not able to work on it further. I am ambivalent as to whether this should be kept, deleted or redirected, but this decision needs input from subject experts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Ldm1954:, the reviewer whom I have quoted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

From what I can see the content of the article has nothing to do with the reason for the block. Let's get a couple of other opinions, and perhaps even some WP:HEY edits. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Adsorption operations

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

AfD to enforce draftification or delete. The article quotes heavily a single source which combines a range of standard surface science topics under a neologism of "adsorption operations". I don't think the originator realized that their source did WP:SYNTH. (As a card-carrying surface scientist I also see some gaps in the science described here.) Since they have already once overridden a draftification it needs to go to AfD for at least draftification. I will leave to the debate whether a delete as not rescuable is appropriate. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete as rescuable. We can definitely fix this article, I don't think it's quite article status, but definitely has the potential to be an article after improvement. Ev0308 (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Enforce draftification. If the draft expires it can be deleted at that time. Gjs238 (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Climate change in Baden-Württemberg

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

Per the precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change in North Rhine-Westphalia, where a very similar page was deleted. Users in that discussion cited pages such as WP:OR, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:MILL, WP:NOPAGE, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE to explain their arguments for deletion. These pages are sparse and little justifies creating a separate page for each state in Germany. This content would be better served at Climate change in Germany. Astaire (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Environment, and Germany. Astaire (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Delete - per Vanamonde93's comment on the original AfD, which sums everything up quite nicely imo. Another possible outcome would be BLAR all of these to Climate change in Germany. Zzz plant (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Delete all. The climate doesn't change at state borders. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. Mccapra (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Suggestion - consolidate all these nominated articles into one list article that meets WP:NLIST. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
A list of what? We already have Climate change in Germany where information on individual states can be added if desired. Astaire (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Redirect/merge all to Climate change in Germany. No need for all these state articles that have really generic impact sections, but the legislative response could still be covered together. Reywas92^Talk 13:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Dr. Vinod Sharma

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

Subject does not meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for a standalone article under Wp:GNG, Wp:BIO or Wp:ACADEMIC.

While Sharma is associated with a Guinness World Record for the largest memory lesson (2018), there is insufficient significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources to establish notability. Zuck28 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, Health and fitness, Science, Medicine, and India. Zuck28 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

delete none of these sources are WP:SIGCOV that I can see, they are short blurbs (even those that I could translate from Hindi). A world record by itself does not confer notability especially as these can be essentially purchased. Clearly doesnt pass WP:NPROF. --hroest 18:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Dear! @Hannes Röst, No, Guinness World Records titles cannot be purchased. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 19:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, they can, pretty much. They're a marketing gimmick from a novelty publisher. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
How ? Any reference or Discussion available ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 09:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
I think the criticism is that you can make up some really niche record like "most 10W light bulbs lit at the same time" and pay for the items to be delivered and get the people from Guinness in to confirm the record and bam you have yourself a record. AFAIK the Guinness people dont care what the record is as long as it can be verifiable and can be broken by someone else and you pay a fee (see for example this recent record for most glass bottles trapped with a Slinky in 1 minute). --hroest 13:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own article about the Guinness Book explains, in polite terms, how it's a racket. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Keep This article meets notability guidelines under WP:GNG and WP:BIO according to sources. The subject has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 19:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Delete I agree with the evaluations by the nominator and by hroest. This is an advertisement and should be removed as such. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Support nom; does not muster WP:GNG as there's no significant coverage about the individual in reliable sources WeWake (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Sanatan Wisdom Foundation

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

Brand-new organisation lauded in over-the-top "articles" which seem to be typical paid-for advertisements published as genuine articles. "And at the centre of it all stands Sonic Philosophy: not just an idea, but a movement in the making." is how one article states it, while another concludes "In a world exhausted by noise, Svaryam offers resonance. In a culture addicted to stimulation, it introduces stillness. And in an age of fragmentation, it reclaims unity—through vibration, through consciousness, and through the timeless power of sacred sound." An article like this one would need WP:MEDRS, not this. Fram (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Science, Medicine, and India. Fram (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep

Collapsed AI-generated argument. Please write your own comments Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

- This organization meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The Sanatan Wisdom Foundation has received significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent national Indian news outlets. These are not just small mentions but detailed reports about the foundation's work and impact.

For example:
- The Financial Express: This is a major national business newspaper. Their article, "Sanatan Wisdom: India's new model for the global mental health crisis," gives in-depth details about the foundation's scientific approach, its main projects (like NYRI, Svaryam, and Naad Yagya), and how it aligns with big goals like UN SDG-3 and the AYUSH mission. This shows serious, detailed coverage.
- The Hans India, Daily Excelsior, Lokmat Times: These national papers have covered NYRI's scientific studies on Vedic sound, including its partnerships with top institutions like AIIMS and IIT. This highlights the foundation's notable research.
- The Pioneer: This national newspaper reported on the "Global Sonic Experiment" linked to Naad Yagya, showing a notable event organized by the foundation.
- Ahmedabad Mirror: Provides additional independent reporting on its founding and goals.
While the foundation was established recently, the immediate and widespread national media attention it has received, detailing its unique approach to mental health, demonstrates its notability. It's not just an organization of a single person; it's a foundation with verifiable initiatives and scientific collaborations that have been reported on significantly by various independent news organizations.

Thank you for your time and review.

Svaryam (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Please also note that the creator of this article has already stated (wrt to another article, declined repeatedly at AfC) that they have a COI with the founder of the company. Fram (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Collapsed AI-generated argument. Please write your own comments Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding COI disclosure: I acknowledge Fram's comment. I confirm that I have a professional relationship with the founder of Sanatan Wisdom Foundation. I understand Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy and have made every effort to ensure this article is written from a neutral point of view, relying exclusively on independent, reliable, and secondary sources. I am committed to following all Wikipedia guidelines and will continue to make revisions as needed to meet community standards. My intention is to contribute factual, verifiable information, and I apologize if my previous actions regarding other articles caused any confusion. Svaryam (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Further response: Article has been thoroughly revised for neutrality and conciseness. I have implemented all suggestions to remove promotional language and ensure the tone is strictly factual. The article now exclusively focuses on verifiable facts, supported by reliable and independent national media coverage. I believe these revisions fully address the concerns regarding promotional tone and content.

Svaryam (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete: Most of the sources were published around the time between April and June this year with a few being published at the end of May and all are very similar and promotional in tone ("groundbreaking", "pioneering", their mission and vision, etc.). None have a named author which suggests they are regurgitated press releases/ WP:NEWSORGINDIA. S0091 (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Response to concerns about source independence, timing, and authorship (S0091):

Collapsed AI-generated argument. Please write your own comments Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the detailed scrutiny of the sources. I acknowledge that several articles were published within a concentrated period and some may employ descriptive language, reflecting a journalistic style that can be enthusiastic when covering new initiatives. However, these factors do not automatically negate the independence or reliability of the publications themselves.

The sources cited (The Financial Express, The Hans India, The Pioneer, Daily Excelsior, Lokmat Times, Ahmedabad Mirror, News18 Hindi) are prominent and editorially independent news organizations in India. Their decision to publish articles, even without a named author, implies editorial vetting and a determination of newsworthiness by an established media outlet. These are not obscure or unverified blogs but mainstream news entities with a public reputation to uphold.

While the absence of named authors on specific pieces can be a concern for in-depth analysis, it is a common practice in certain types of news reporting, particularly for organizational announcements or features on emerging entities, and does not inherently make the entire publication unreliable or indicate a "planted" advertisement. The key information (e.g., collaborations with AIIMS/IIT, the development of specific platforms like Svaryam, and documented events like the Naad Yagya in Ujjain) represents verifiable activities reported by multiple distinct outlets.

The article on Wikipedia has been meticulously crafted to extract only factual, verifiable information from these sources, explicitly avoiding any "puff piece" language or promotional tone. The focus remains on what the organization does and what has been reported about it, rather than its stated mission or vision in a promotional sense. I urge reviewers to consider the overall reputation and editorial independence of the publishing news organizations in India when assessing these sources for notability.

Svaryam (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Here's a Tribune article published May 28th, which is not cited in the article but has the disclaimer "ADVERTORIAL DISCLAIMER: The above press release has been provided by PNN. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of the same" and all the others published around the same time pretty much say the same things. The AhmedabadMirror, which is cited, is marked as a "Special" which is code for press release as noted at WP:NEWSORGINDIA. S0091 (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Response to concerns about source independence, timing, and authorship (S0091):

Collapsed AI-generated argument. Please write your own comments Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the detailed scrutiny of the sources. Regarding the Tribune article mentioned, I want to clarify that **this specific article is not cited as a source in the Wikipedia page for Sanatan Wisdom Foundation.** My reliance is solely on the sources explicitly cited within the article. Concerning the Ahmedabad Mirror reference, I have re-examined the cited article from Ahmedabad Mirror to check for the "Special" marking. **Upon re-examination, I found that the article is indeed categorized under 'Others Specials', and its style, similar to syndicated news wire content (e.g., beginning with 'New Delhi [India], May 12:'), aligns with common formats for press releases.** Recognizing that such content may not fully meet Wikipedia's criteria for independent, secondary sources for notability, **I have promptly removed this specific Ahmedabad Mirror source from the Wikipedia article.** I acknowledge that several articles were published within a concentrated period and some may employ descriptive language. However, the remaining sources I have cited (e.g., Financial Express, The Hans India, The Pioneer, Daily Excelsior, Lokmat Times, News18 Hindi, and the recently noted Punjab Kesari article updated by Diksha Raghuwanshi) are prominent and editorially independent news organizations in India. Their decision to publish articles, even if not always by a named journalist (though some now explicitly show editorial attribution), implies editorial vetting and a determination of newsworthiness by an established media outlet. These are mainstream news entities with a public reputation to uphold. The key information (e.g., collaborations with AIIMS/IIT, the development of specific platforms like Svaryam, and documented events like the Naad Yagya in Ujjain) represents verifiable activities reported by multiple distinct outlets. The Wikipedia article itself has been meticulously crafted to extract only factual, verifiable information from these sources, explicitly avoiding any "puff piece" language or promotional tone. I reaffirm my commitment to adhering to Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and neutral point of view, and I urge reviewers to assess the overall independence and reputation of the publishing news organizations in India when evaluating the sources.

Svaryam (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Svaryam please read WP:BLUDGEON. Repeating your arguments is not helpful, especially the WP:WALLSOFTEXT. Other editors will review and opine. S0091 (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Acknowledgement: Understood. I will refrain from further comments and allow other editors to review and opine. Thank you for the clarification.

Svaryam (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Delete - we are neither a soapbox, nor a free web host. Pages like this are fodder for the wealthiest man in the World, newly made up with his BFF, to take away our charity status. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

James Woodward (physicist)

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

The WP:PROF, WP:GNG, and WP:NFRINGE considerations of this page makes me think that James Woodward is just likely not notable. None of the sources listed mention him seriously as a person and I question whether his fringe theory really is all that notable. Certainly his idea is not published reliably, but instead are in fringe journals, and there does not seem to be WP:FRIND sources available to the degree we would normally wish. When academics are supposed to be "notable" for the claims outside their field of expertise, it is an immediate WP:REDFLAG. I think this is not deserving of an article. jps (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Spaceflight. jps (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Delete due to failure to meet WP:NPROF. Only two of the seven sources cited are independent of him, and those two don't provide significant coverage of Woodward, but rather more about the flaws in weird propulsion science. More telling, we can compare Woodward's h-index of 58[4] with what's typical for a full professor in the sciences [5], suggesting that he isn't notable, but rather average in terms of scholarly impact. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
I believe that Google Scholar profile page is for a different James Woodward, a philosopher of science who worked at the University of Pittsburgh. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
I think [this is the correct page for the current subject at CSU. --hroest 13:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
That one shows an h-index of 10, which definitely suggests non-notable, particularly for someone as advanced in his career as the subject of this article. In spite of my error identifying the wrong James Woodward above (I thought it was the same guy because at the time, that page listed an article about propulsion, which no longer appears), I stand by my "delete" comment. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Which is irrelevant for what is being discussed or why you were asked back here. Per even WP:NPROF, It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. Therefore, h-index has nothing to do with what is being discussed. Silver seren^C 20:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Colorado, New York, and Vermont. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Delete I can't find evidence that Woodward is notable (in either the colloquial or the Wikipedian sense of the word) as a person. The general topic of esoteric space drives that would require violations of known physics is encyclopedia-worthy, like perpetual motion machines and squaring the circle. But the "Mach effect" is just one proposal in a long line of them. I doubt there's enough in reliable sources about it to justify giving it an article, and there's certainly much less justification for having an article about Woodward as a person. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Delete per above, if suitable WP:RS exists the theories can be assigned to some relevant article, but they seem minor even in that odd line of concepts. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Despite the similarity of name and topic I am convinced that all the publications that might contribute to WP:PROF#C1 are by the other James F. Woodward (who is definitely notable despite our problems with his article) and that all publications that might contribute to notability for this James F. Woodward are fringe physics. They don't have enough citations for #C1, and I was unable to find reviews that might contribute to WP:AUTHOR for his book Making Starships and Stargates: The Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes, let alone the mainstream reviews needed for WP:NPOV-compliant coverage of this topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Delete: per above Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 10:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Delete - I taught physics twice and had my articles rejected after peer review by Ralph Alpher. That doesn't make me notable, and neither does it make this guy, who fails PROF badly. We are not the place to post original content and we never have. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Keep: While the current state of the article is not good, WP:PROF is not the only metric for notability. WP:GNG may be satisfied. Woodward's career, and the fringe nature of his research, has been covered in depth by the likes of Scientific American^[1] Wired magazine,^[2] Big Think,^[3] as well as a shorter article in the Orange County Register.^[4] His research is summarized and built upon briefly in a paper by Martin Tajmar.^[5] I'm not well-versed in physics, theoretical, or otherwise, but if someone did a deep literature dive it's plausible even more reliable secondary coverage could be found. If people and/or their ideas have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, then they are notable. Simply summarizing Woodward's controversial research, as Wired and Scientific American have, should not be considered promotion of it. The third-party sources I've found in a few minutes of googling can largely replace the existing primary sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out Martin Tajmar article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Tajmar (2nd nomination). N.b. Wired and Scientific American did not do their due diligence in seeing how out-on-a-limb this guy (and others in those articles) really is. See WP:SENSATION -- which is, sadly, what both of these otherwise upstanding source fell into. As for OCR and Big Think, those two sources are much more commonly recognized for credulity pushing. jps (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Pop-science magazines and websites are generally unsuitable for writing about fringe topics. They nearly inevitably skew to the sensationalist; they've been known to grant unearned credibility to total nonsense. (The industry has a history of getting suckered by space drive stories in particular.) Credulously "summarizing" claims that violate basic principles of physics is promoting them. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

delete does not pass WP:NPROF. Note that there are at least two people with the same name, one which is the current subject with an h index of 10 and a second (history) professor at Pittsburgh with an h-index of 29. Therefore he doesnt pass NPROF#1 and given how little reception he gets inside academia I think it is hard to argue that he passes any of the points in NPROF. --hroest 13:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep Well, I'm not going to be nice here. Sorry for being so confrontational, y'all, but it really feels like none of you even bothered to look up sources properly (other than the only other person who clearly did and then decided to vote Keep because they actually took the time to look). The guy's fringe, 100%. He's also definitely not a WP:PROF pass, 100%. However, the WP:GNG seems very clearly satisfied by multiple years of news coverage of his fringe-y work, not to mention scientific papers discussing his ideas or debunking them (even if some are written by other fringe-y credulists, they're still in proper journals) that addresses his claims as the main subject of the papers and not just as an aside.

This seems like an attempt to delete subjects entirely because they're fringe, without any regard for actual GNG notability standards. Which is, sadly, fairly standard for Fringe topic noticeboard regulars and there's been multiple cases where I had to come in and actually argue for our notability policies previously.

Beyond Einstein? by Stephen Notley, Edmonton Journal (1999)
Woodward’s Wormholes by Sherri Cruz, The Orange County Register (2013)
Set the controls for the stars by Gwynne Dyer, Kimberley Bulletin (2018)
Is it Space Drive Time? by John G. Cramer, Analog Science Fiction and Fact (2014)
Mach Propulsion, All About Space
Mach-Effect thruster model by M. Tajmar, Acta Astronautica (2017)
Possible Mach Effects in Bodies Accelerated by NonUniform Magnetic Fields by N. Buldrini, Physics Procedia (2011)
A Machian wave effect in conformal, scalar–tensor gravitational theory by José J. A. Rodal, General Relativity and Gravitation (2019)
Future Spacecraft Propulsion Systems and Integration by Paul A. Czysz, Claudio Bruno, Bernd Chudoba, Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Making starships and stargates by E. Kincanon, Choice Reviews

So, if we want to have a discussion about the sources that actually exist, most of which were easily findable from a Google search, then let's please do that. Rather than claiming there aren't any sources, which is easily debunkable. Being fringe pseudoscience doesn't mean non-notable. Silver seren^C 02:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

You think these sources pass WP:FRIND? I don't think so. jps (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

They are literally mainstream secondary sources, the kind that FRIND specifically talks about as what should be preferred. They aren't fringe specific media or sources. Silver seren^C 21:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

They don't look mainstream to me. The ones by journalists look like they are falling afoul of WP:SENSATION. The ones by ostensible scientists look like they are fellow WP:PROFRINGE personalities. jps (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Local newspapers and a science-fiction magazine are not going to be good sources for an article that's supposed to be about science. (Even the Guardian and the BBC have bungled it sometimes, running silly season stories about "local man says he can divide by zero" and such. One example is documented in Underwood Dudley's Mathematical Cranks.) Moreover, we're not debating whether to mention "Mach effects" in an article about the general topic of way-out-there spacedrive proposals. The question is whether a biography page for James F. Woodward needs to exist. There's potentially enough for the former, but after subtracting out the noise, there isn't for the latter. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and the Choice Reviews item is a brief (248 words) paragraph saying that libraries shouldn't feel obligated to buy Woodward's book. The gist: "Historian/physicist Woodward (California State Univ., Fullerton) proposes a propulsion method that seems to contradict basic physics principles." And, other research "explains the errors of his experiments and points to results that show no extra field effects." A cursory dismissal of Woodward's publication is not evidence in favor of having an article about Woodward. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Nothing of what you said has anything to do with notability or WP:GNG. He is a fringe crank, yes. Sources covering him as a crank is a good thing in that regard. In fact, sources dismissing him and his ideas are exactly what we want for notability for a fringe topic, since that allows us to not only have coverage, but can also explicitly put that his views are nonsense. Silver seren^C 22:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The general notability guideline requires significant coverage in reliable sources. Local newspapers and science-fiction magazines aren't reliable for this purpose. A trade journal for libraries is probably not the best bet, either, and one paragraph is not what I'd call "significant". Overall, Woodward falls into the case described at the end of that guideline. He doesn't "meet these criteria" as a person, but there are still "some verifiable facts" about his claims, which are best discussed "within another article". Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

There are multiple pieces of significant coverage about him and his claims. Local newspapers only applies if they are all in the same local area (and generally if its actually an area local to the subject), so you don't have say someone in a single Kentucky county who keep getting coverage from county newspapers. That's not at all the case here, these newspapers have no connection with each other and are temporally disparate to boot, so it's not a single event burst of coverage either. Also, I have no idea what your addition of science fiction magazines has to do with that. Science fiction magazine are perfectly reliable and contribute just fine to notability as with any other magazine. Coverage of someone's statements and ideas is also coverage of them, so long as it isn't solely question and response interview coverage. Silver seren^C 22:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Fluff pieces aren't any better than "question and response interview coverage". Those news stories are fluff pieces. (The Kimberley Bulletin: "It's starting to look like interstellar travel may be possible in a time frame that may be manageable for human beings. [...] I'd explain the Mach effect in greater detail, but I barely understand it myself.") Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I see you selectively picked that one, the weakest of the news pieces, while ignoring coverage like this that is a full page article that has much more detail. Specifically what the claimed theory is, what the machinery is he built and how it's supposed to work and, happily for me, criticism of his claims by other scientists and pointing out how his ideas are doubtful in their efficacy. It's good we have multiple sources, including Rodal's rebuttal academic piece up there, so we can clearly and directly state the fringiness. Silver seren^C 22:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I picked the quote that made the fluff-piece nature obvious, in my view. The Edmonton Journal story is longer, but not better. In some ways, it's worse, because it plays up the false balance. It's yet another example of a genre with which all scientists grow familiar: "This maverick has an extraordinary claim! The so-called 'experts' think there's nothing to it... but who knows?!" It uncritically accepts Woodward's own framing that he had "good theory and good experimental data" and gives short shrift to the one independent critic (Don Page). The extra "detail" just drowns out the basic lack of substance.

The Orange County Register story is quintessential silly season. It quotes no critical voices at all. It flunks high-school physics by confusing Newton's first and third laws of motion.

Even the most generous reading of the available documentation only shows that this far-out fringe idea is not the most obscure of the far-out fringe ideas. I don't see the need to wrap the one-paragraph explanation of why it's a far-out fringe idea with another few sentences about where its originator was born and went to school. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Your entire argument here seems to be classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT in regards to the fringiness. Yes, he's fringe, I've already repeatedly stated I agree on that. But that has nothing to do with notability. Him being a pseudoscience nonsense pusher is completely irrelevant to a discussion of notability. Your criticism of the sources seems to boil down to them not covering the subject in the way you'd prefer. It is not an argument that actually refutes the coverage meeting WP:GNG requirements. Silver seren^C 23:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

My criticism of the sources boils down to them being evidently unqualified to discuss physics. Newton's first law is not the same as Newton's third law! They're not reliable, and so they don't qualify towards any guideline that depends upon the existence of reliable sources. You can't make an encyclopedia article out of news clippings that are scientifically illiterate.

I'm not saying that articles about people known only for fringey things are bad. I'm not saying that an article about Woodward's fringey work would be bad. I don't think there's enough to write about it that an entire article would be warranted, and I don't see how the paltry amount that could be written is enough to hang a whole biography on. Under different circumstances, if different source material were available, I'd be defending the existence of the biography page, but as matters stand I just can't make the case for it. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

My criticism of the sources boils down to them being evidently unqualified to discuss physics.

Is that an allowed factor enumerated on WP:GNG? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, that guideline requires that the sources be "reliable", and news stories that do the physics equivalent of declaring the Earth to be flat, or setting up a false balance between antivaxxers and actual medicine... There's no way in good conscience to call them reliable, so how can they count towards the guideline? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Note my !vote above.

I'm just saying, or asking, as that sounds like a much stricter definition than I've seen argued yet. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Not even the venerable Acta Astronautica? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Evaluating Woodward by the academic notability standard, one paper commenting on a person's work isn't enough to make that person notable (not by a long shot). It could contribute to the work being notable, or worth mentioning in an article on a broader topic. Since the author of the Acta Astronautica paper later co-authored a follow-up saying whoops, no "Mach effect" after all, relying on the 2017 paper would give a pretty skewed impression... On the whole, I think we can justify writing a little about the idea, but packaging that into a biography of the person just doesn't make sense to me. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I was simply asking if there was any possible dispute that Acta Astronautica is not a reliable source. I can't see how but in bonkers once-a-century edge cases anyone would argue it's not WP:RS for anything aerospace related. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know any reason not to suppose that Acta Astronautica is generally fine. (Of course, claims about spacedrives that rely upon fringe physics are just where one would expect those bonkers edge cases to arise. Engineers have been known to give a pass to wacky ideas from outside their specialty now and then. They might endorse creationism, dabble in crank math, etc. It happens. And all it takes is a couple referees willing to go "yeah, looks fine" to claims from outside their field for a paper to slip through the review process.) My only concern with relying on the Acta Astronautica item is that it's utterly commonplace for A to write a paper that cites B; one instance of that happening is insufficient justification to have an article about B. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

There was actually a ton of papers in Acta Astronautica about Woodward and his claims, I just didn't feel the need to include more than one example for the same journal. And the existence of that later paper increases his notability and makes it that much easier to point out that his claims are bunk. And it makes more sense to have an article on the person and not the effect, since the effect is bunk and should be kept as just a thing this one guy claims. Having a separate article on the effect would actually be giving it more perceived legitimacy. Silver seren^C 23:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I can appreciate that point of view. But wouldn't it make more sense to have a separate article on neither? Shouldn't we just have one moderately-sized page for all the related kinds of bunk? (Particularly since those papers do discuss the "Mach effect" and the EmDrive together [6], for example.) We have the page reactionless drive that could host a section about Woodward's "Mach effect". Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I feel like I'm being/coming across as more confrontational than a matter of article organization really warrants, so I'll wander off now and trust that the excessive number of words I've spilled already can convey my point. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I just didn't feel the need to include more than one example for the same journal

As far as I'm aware, even if literally nothing but the New York Times covers you--and everyone else in media implausibly ignores you--a WP:SIGCOV in the times once a week for a month makes any of us article worthy, most likely.

If like ten authors wrote about this guy to SIGCOV in that journal, top 20% or so (IIRC) for aerospace, then this is super notable. Is that what you are saying? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Eh, I would agree. But there's some people that argue that sources from the same publication don't count separately toward notability, no matter the disparity in time or authorship. So that's why I usually focus on presenting a breadth of different sources, to better convince those with that opinion. Silver seren^C 02:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

References

^ Scoles, Sarah (August 2019). "The Good Kind of Crazy: The Quest for Exotic Propulsion". Scientific American: 58–65. JSTOR 27265292.
^ Oberhaus, Daniel (September 3, 2020). "Gravity, Gizmos, and a Grand Theory of Interstellar Travel". Wired.
^ Johnson, Stephan (September 7, 2020). "NASA-funded scientist says 'MEGA drive' could enable interstellar travel". Big Think.
^ Cruz, Sherri (May 21, 2013). "Woodward's Wormholes". Orange County Register.
^ Tajmar, Martin (2017). "Mach-Effect thruster model". Acta Astronautica. 141: 8–16. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2017.09.021.

Keep Per the first page of WP:NPROF, It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. With respect, all of the !votes that only cite to WP:NPROF without doing sufficient WP:BEFORE searches to determine if the subject passes WP:GNG strike me as quite deficient. Newspapers and magazines absolutely pass WP:SIGCOV, including the ones provided by Silver Seren. Show me where within WP:GNG newspaper or magazine coverage is precluded from grounding the notability of a person who has conspiratorial views and I will change my vote. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 13:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:FRIND and WP:SENSATION asks us to consider whether the newspapers and magazines are reliable enough to properly provide the context for fringe claims. In this case, these newspaper and magazine articles are breathlessly concluding that this "maverick scientist" is going to revolutionize the spaceflight industry. They apparently did not do their due diligence in finding independent experts who would at a moment's glance have informed them of the implausibility of it all. If we rely on those sources to write our article, Wikipedia would necessarily adopt a WP:PROFRINGE approach. In short, if there are no sources that look with a critical lens at a WP:FRINGE idea, we generally argue that an idea is not notable even if there are dozens of credulous sources to be found (fringe theories by their very nature tend to skew the sourcing standards). This applies equally to WP:FRINGEBLP, which is what this article absolutely must be. WP:GNG should only take over if, for example, there is serious coverage that goes beyond the fringe framing and the sourcing thus would not prevent a neutral article from being written. I don't see that here. jps (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I think this entire split guidance / standards expectations could do with some real-world examples somewhere that can be linked under some WP:PAGE link as an easy example for this on fringe.

Weirdly, I think the Christopher Mellon article we're both familiar with could a be prime baseline example. Like, go edit the full page--this link. Highlight everything from the entire UFO section--don't touch the sourcing/references section. Just in your draft delete the entire UFO section and preview it. Ignore any reference errors--you are not saving! It would be 1/3 shorter as an article, but he'd still sail past WP:GNG anyway. Examples like that--show the person is notable outside X angle. Having actual examples may be a lot easier to explain this. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a significant number of new sources have been introduced since most of the delete !votes, I'm relisting and will hand out a round of pings.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 19:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Anachronist@Hannes Röst@Bearian@Như Gây Mê@David Eppstein, please take a look at the sources posted here since your !vote. Your updated opinions, whether a reaffirmation or an alteration of your original !vote, would be very helpful towards reaching a consensus on notability. Toadspike [Talk] 19:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm still a delete, but thank you. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Since you didn't address GNG or any sources whatsoever in your original vote above, does that imply that your delete vote should be generally ignored as irrelevant for the closer? Silver seren^C 21:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Still a delete. If the strongest thing we can say about this fringe theory is "The effect is controversial", then we are still failing WP:FRINGE in giving WP:UNDUE weight to fringe theories and falling into both-sidesism instead of providing properly neutral coverage of the mainstream pov. Also, I tend to agree with the opinions above that local-newspaper coverage is often not reliable for fringe physics, and is not reliable in this case. (Reliability is always a function of both the source and the content; these newspapers may well be reliable for other topics but that does not make them reliable for everything.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This article isn't about the fringe theory, it is about the person who made it up. Who is the one receiving the coverage. Multiple pieces of coverage, mind you, that are about debunking his claims or showcasing his fringe claims don't hold up to scrutiny. Notable coverage refuting a fringe person is still notable coverage regardless. You don't seem to attempt to actually address how WP:GNG is applied to articles at all. Silver seren^C 20:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
If what he is notable for is significant coverage of his fringe theories then we need to apply our standards for what constitutes significant coverage of fringe theories: sources that are reliably published and that cover this work of the subject with both depth and a point of view that sticks to the consensus of current scholarship. The newspaper stories that cover his work credulously are reliably published by our standards but are not scholarly and do not stick to the mainstream scholarly point of view, so they fail this test. If he were notable for something else like WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR then we could use our notability standard for that and then treat the fringe theories as a sideline (example: A. K. Dewdney), but we don't have the notability evidence that would allow us to handle it that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Weak Delete (!voting because of the call for uninvolved editors to help form a concensus). Definitely not by WP:PROF standards, but does the total coverage of the theories, the theory's creator, weighed by the reliability/independence of the external sources add up to a GNG pass? It's not easy to say, but it looks like the answer is No even without taking into account any "extraordinary claims require..." rules. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Ising critical exponents

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

A weird article that contains a bunch of undefined Greek letters and some gobbledegook --Altenmann >talk 18:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains hundreds of thousands of highly specialized articles in exact sciences (physics, mathematics, biology). If a non-expert looks on an article they may find it's gibberish. The terminology of the article is standard, and it is supported by links to other existing articles. PhysicsAboveAll (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for highly-specialized experts. Highly-specialized experts usually read highly-specialized books and papers, rather than essays of high-school students in wp. Whereas an encyclopedia is for laymen who, with some perseverance, could have some edication. But here it is not the case. The article is 100% based on primary sources. The only book cited is a ref for "Critical exponent". Therefore it is impossible to verify whether it is up-do-date or even correct at any point in time. --Altenmann >talk 07:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The referencing is not great, but the book contains enough discussion about the Ising model for verification, and Pelissetto & Vicari (2002) is a review article (Section 3.2. is about the Ising critical exponents). In addition, while the research articles are primary sources for the new results, they are secondary for older results and the history of problem. 130.234.230.66 (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree @PhysicsAboveAll on this, and I strongly disagree with the proposed deletion of this article. Wikipedia is used both by laymen and experts, and as long as either (in the best case both) group benefits from the existence of an article, one should not remove it. I do agree that this article is lacking in numerous aspects, I have personally used it several times in the past and found it useful. 139.18.9.3 (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. No valid reason for deletion (WP:DEL-REASON) has been given. Wikipedia strives to be accessible, but this does not mean that technical articles should be removed. Instead, they should be written one level down from the level the content is usually presented on (WP:ONEDOWN). In this case, this is a topic usually presented on an advanced course in statistical mechanics, so the text should ideally be written to be accessible to an undergraduate physics student. Notability is not a concern, as the critical exponents of the Ising model are a central topic in statistical mechanics, discussed for example in Kenneth Wilson's 1982 Nobel lecture. A more accessible introduction would be David Tong's lecture notes (Ch. 5) Leo Kadanoff's commentary in Journal Club for Condensed Matter Physics (cited in the article) is a useful secondary source here. 130.234.230.66 (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Merge to Ising model. I do not see that the critical exponents are an independently notable topic that need a subarticle here. Reywas92^Talk 14:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Notability is not an issue, as there's ample discussion about the exponents in the literature. Of course, they are always discussed in the context of the model, but note that the prose size of Ising model is 12086 words, not counting the parts formatted as lists. Probably there is a lot of fluff to be condensed, but at the moment this suggests that we should not add more stuff (see WP:SIZERULE), but instead split off subarticles. There may, however, be better ways to do the split than the current one. 130.234.230.66 (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
There are zero sources in the Ising model#Four dimensions and above, which like a lot of the article is dense explanations of formulas. Much of this could be trimmed since we are an encyclopedia not a textbook. The article uses "we" 32 times... Reywas92^Talk 17:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
I agree that it can be improved, but that should be done by someone knowledgeable, otherwise it might not improve WP. The Ising model in 4-epsilon and higher dimensions is discussed in standard textbooks, which indicates that we should also have a substantial discussion. In the Encyclopedia of Condensed Matter Physics (2024), the word "we" is used 4562 times over its 4473 pages. MOS:WE also makes an exception for "author's we" in scientific writing. 130.234.240.12 (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. The nominator's reasons for going to AfD seem to be inappropriate. As mentioned by others above, this is a well established topic, it seems that no good WP:BEFORE was done; a quick GS search give many links. Yes, it can (and should) be improved, I suggest a more gentle lead sentence to paragraph before the current content (I tagged it for a lead rewrite). Ldm1954 (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Alright, respondents disagree with the nomination statement - but is the topic notable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I think your question was already answered by several of us above, the topic is very notable, see the results of the GS search. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Let me put my response another way. Any professional scientist in physics or materials science will have heard of Ising models and these exponents, and perhaps professionals in a few other areas, although they may not know the details (I dont). The rating in Talk:Ising critical exponents of "Mid-importance" is, IMHO, reasonable accurate. A topic which has such a large journal and book literature is notable, the specific GS search https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C14&q=%22ising+critical+exponents%22&btnG= has close to 700 entries. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment. There is a body of literature discussing "Ising critical exponents": articles + books. There's not much question of notability in that sense. Another term which refers to these exponents is Ising universality class (It might even be a better name for the article). One can find more sources with that term: articles + books. The fact that the ordinary liquid-gas phase transition belongs to the 3D Ising universality class makes this very relevant for ordinary matter, and that also distinguishes the topic from Ising model (Ising model being just one example system in Ising universality class). 130.234.110.113 (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Delete or Redirect to Ising model. The topic is not independently notable. No need to create a separate article for this. 110.227.37.228 (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
~~Keep and possibly rename to Ising universality class as suggested above.~~ The nomination is misguided; there's nothing actually wrong with having an article that requires a technical background, since for the most part nearly everyone who would be looking it up will have that technical background. The Ising model is a workhorse of statistical physics, as any textbook on the topic will confirm. On my desk right now I have Kerson Huang's Statistical Mechanics (Wiley, 1987), which has two whole chapters devoted to it (one on the Ising model in general and another on the exact solution for the 2D square lattice). The critical exponents of the Ising model in different dimensions are an important feature of it. I would agree with the suggestion to merge this material into the main Ising model page, but that article is already rather long and not so well organized. Moreover, merely merging this text into that would leave the notation undefined, so we'd be writing even more and making the page longer yet again. I think that our coverage of the topic overall would benefit from judiciously trimming Ising model and migrating some of its text to other articles. One approach would be to rename this article to Ising universality class and bring most of Ising model#Applications over into it. But deleting this article would be the wrong first step. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Merge to universality class. Most of the numbers are already there, and so is an explanation of the notation. (I am revising my opinion after more fully surveying the articles in this topic area.) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

My preference would be to merge this information into a streamlined set of articles including (or reorganizing) Ising model, Universality class, Square lattice Ising model, Two-dimensional critical Ising model and Kramers–Wannier duality (which is currently all about the Ising model except for some "other contexts" mentioned in passing). This could help to provide context clarifying the notability of the critical exponents and the methods used to obtain them, rather than giving us a short listicle tabulating a handful of numbers (most of which are already also in Universality class). That said, in practice I doubt we have a group with the time and inclination to carry out this streamlining (I can't volunteer), and in the absence of that I wouldn't object to leaving things as they are. --David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 12:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep given that notability has been established above, I'm not understanding why we should do anything with this article - let's leave it as it is. Stockhausenfan (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions

Flow arrangement (via WP:PROD on 17 January 2025)
Reiner Kümmel (via WP:PROD on 16 January 2025)
Measure (physics) (via WP:PROD on 7 December 2024)
Evolution equations in high-energy particle physics (via WP:PROD on 4 December 2024)

Science Miscellany for deletion

Science Redirects for discussion

Deletion Review

This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ace111.

[1] Scoles, Sarah (August 2019). "The Good Kind of Crazy: The Quest for Exotic Propulsion". Scientific American: 58–65. JSTOR 27265292.

[2] Oberhaus, Daniel (September 3, 2020). "Gravity, Gizmos, and a Grand Theory of Interstellar Travel". Wired.

[3] Johnson, Stephan (September 7, 2020). "NASA-funded scientist says 'MEGA drive' could enable interstellar travel". Big Think.

[4] Cruz, Sherri (May 21, 2013). "Woodward's Wormholes". Orange County Register.

[5] Tajmar, Martin (2017). "Mach-Effect thruster model". Acta Astronautica. 141: 8–16. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2017.09.021.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]