Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BRST formalism

: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 merge to BRST quantization. T. Canens (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

=[[BRST formalism]]=

:{{la|BRST formalism}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BRST formalism}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|BRST formalism}})

This article is a mess. And it seems BRST formalism is the same as BRST quantization, which is better and has more detail. I'd say just nuke this sucker, Wikipedia will be better off without it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose, Speedy deny None, of the things mentioned in the nomination are any reason for deletion. Merger and redirect to BRST quantization may be a good idea, but do not in any way require an AfD.TimothyRias (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • What Tim said. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Subject is important but the article is atrociously written. Redirect to BRST quantization which says it better. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC).
  • So which do you want? Delete, or redirect? Those are two different outcomes. Uncle G (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect No reason for stand alone article when compared with duplication that is far superior. It should be recreated in the future though, and expanded. Outback the koala (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Why not expand it now, then? And what will happen in the future that will make this not a duplicate of the same subject? Uncle G (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Please feel free to expand, I am willing to change my opinion if there are significant changes on the page. Outback the koala (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • A duplicate article is a duplicate article and no amount of expansion will ever change that. In fact, it only makes it harder to try to merge things in the future. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:54, 24 October 2010 (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.