Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auxiliary field

: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 keep. There is consensus that whatever problems ail this article can be addressed, but notability does not appear to be in doubt. Randykitty (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

=[[:Auxiliary field]]=

:{{la|Auxiliary field}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Auxiliary field}})

The article has been unsourced since Feb 2007. After 15 years, I think a deletion discussion is appropriate. Coin945 (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete an unsourced dictionary definition. If you are going to argue to keep an article you need to produce at least some sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Very Weak Keep with possible rename The IDEA of using a constructed "auxiliary field" to simplify calculation is a common technique in mathematical physics, and QFT in particular. As such THAT concept would certainly pass WP:GNG. A comment on the article correctly points out that the "H" field in electromagnetism is sometimes referred to as an auxiliary field in that vein.

However, the specific language used in THIS article seems to be describing a particular use of the technique, not the general concept. While the CONCEPT is certainly notable enough for an article, the content of THIS article is not that. Further, although I didn't read it exhaustively, the one cited source isn't clearly using the form of the auxiliary field cited here. (Or it might be and I just missed it.) It's analogous to having an unsourced description of Garfield be the entirety of an article called "Cartoon Characters" that had a single link to a Peanuts anthology.

I think the BEST outcome would be to delete the entire content of the article and replace it with an article describing the general concept of auxiliary fields in mathematical physics. As I am not volunteering to do this, another possibility would be to keep the article and rename it "Auxiliary Field (Quantum Field Theory)" or something similar in hopes of future improvement. Deletion, however, would also be perfectly reasonable. PianoDan (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep - The article is clearly about the same concept dealt with in easily found papers such as [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0550321383901013 Relation between different auxiliary field formulations of N = 1 supergravity coupled to matter] (Nuclear Physics B) and [https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0309256 Auxiliary fields and hadron dynamics] (published Physical Review D, 2004) and further use of Google Scholar search indicates that the use of the term is widely discussed and so will easily clear GNG. The issues {{u|PianoDan}} raises are not WP:TNT-like issues, so I don't see them as mattering here; they are problems to be raised on the article's talk page when the AfD is done. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2021 (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.