- 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 speedy delete. Creator requested deletion ( G7 speedy) (non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 16:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Fundamental Schrodinger Equation
- Fundamental Schrodinger Equation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Original research from someone who gave the equation an eponymous name. Cannot find any other references that exist. While this may not be pure FRINGE (as mathematically it's not completely ridiculous) this is not an article to have on Wikipedia at this time. Primefac ( talk) 17:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I was unable to find independent, in depth, reliable sources describing this approach; hence this article fails notability guidelines as described in WP:GNG. The sourcing all comes from a single author and so the article is original research on these primary sources. An article without the possibility of reliable sourcing should be deleted. -- Mark viking ( talk) 18:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Do not delete This article has been published in peer reviewed journals. It appears that the people suggesting its deletion are not aware of the importance of published research. I see no grounds for its deletion. You can check the two articles given in the reference if you have any doubts. I have added an additional source as well. Physicstasy —Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia does not publish OR. Zero impact. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC).
- Do not delete Xxanthippe, what do you mean by "wikipedia does not publish OR"? and how can you claim zero impact. Please be more specific and descriptive. I have seen several pages on wikipedia that have even less sources than this page, for example, Quantum carpet. Physicstasy —Preceding undated comment added 07:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete now, but no objection to recreation if independent sources are found Physicstasy, you are clearly the author of the two references and the originator of this topic. You should keep out of this discussion as you are not independent and you should not write an article or edit an article about your own work. You are also clearly a newcomer to Wikipidia and you need to study our policies and guidelines. Your comment about Quantum carpet is covered, for example, by WP:OTHERSTUFF. The more important point is that we do not have an article about everything that is published in a scientific paper. We need it to be noticed by others to meet the notability guideline. If it gets widely accepted, then perhaps the article can be recreated. Mark viking above has it right. -- Bduke (Discussion) 08:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes I am the author of this article. I see your point also. I have deleted the page so now you can stop arguing and delete it anyways. Thank you for your time. Physicstasy —Preceding undated comment added 09:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 speedy delete. Creator requested deletion ( G7 speedy) (non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 16:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Fundamental Schrodinger Equation
- Fundamental Schrodinger Equation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Original research from someone who gave the equation an eponymous name. Cannot find any other references that exist. While this may not be pure FRINGE (as mathematically it's not completely ridiculous) this is not an article to have on Wikipedia at this time. Primefac ( talk) 17:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I was unable to find independent, in depth, reliable sources describing this approach; hence this article fails notability guidelines as described in WP:GNG. The sourcing all comes from a single author and so the article is original research on these primary sources. An article without the possibility of reliable sourcing should be deleted. -- Mark viking ( talk) 18:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Do not delete This article has been published in peer reviewed journals. It appears that the people suggesting its deletion are not aware of the importance of published research. I see no grounds for its deletion. You can check the two articles given in the reference if you have any doubts. I have added an additional source as well. Physicstasy —Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia does not publish OR. Zero impact. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC).
- Do not delete Xxanthippe, what do you mean by "wikipedia does not publish OR"? and how can you claim zero impact. Please be more specific and descriptive. I have seen several pages on wikipedia that have even less sources than this page, for example, Quantum carpet. Physicstasy —Preceding undated comment added 07:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete now, but no objection to recreation if independent sources are found Physicstasy, you are clearly the author of the two references and the originator of this topic. You should keep out of this discussion as you are not independent and you should not write an article or edit an article about your own work. You are also clearly a newcomer to Wikipidia and you need to study our policies and guidelines. Your comment about Quantum carpet is covered, for example, by WP:OTHERSTUFF. The more important point is that we do not have an article about everything that is published in a scientific paper. We need it to be noticed by others to meet the notability guideline. If it gets widely accepted, then perhaps the article can be recreated. Mark viking above has it right. -- Bduke (Discussion) 08:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes I am the author of this article. I see your point also. I have deleted the page so now you can stop arguing and delete it anyways. Thank you for your time. Physicstasy —Preceding undated comment added 09:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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.