Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hořava–Witten string theory

: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. However, I would counsel User:Dimension10 against WP:BLUDGEONing future AFD discussions. Stifle (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

===Hořava–Witten string theory===

:{{la|Hořava–Witten string theory}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ho%C5%99ava%E2%80%93Witten_string_theory Stats])

:({{Find sources|Hořava–Witten string theory}})

No evidence of existence of such theory. The term does not show in google searches, nor in the references given. The article is heavily based on a single self-published source, but how it follows from it is unclear. Other references are in support of well-known things about string theory. So I'd say it is a dubious original research. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

::: What do you mean by "self-published"? It is certainly not my work, and is thus, not self-published. Dimension10 (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Dimension10 (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Dimension10 (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

::: Actually, this article was created before. And yes, the topics are related (this is M-theory with a HW boundary, the Townsend one is just M-theory with a toroidal ckompactification) , so it is natural that the articles look the same. Dimension10 (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

:::::: And the article was deleted because adminstrators refused to actually check the references. Dimension10 (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep. Urs Schreiber has an article about this at nCat lab, strongly suggesting the notability of the article. See [http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Ho%C5%99ava-Witten+theory] and the references therein. The original articles by Hořava and Witten together have over 4000 citations (see [http://scholar.google.pl/scholar?hl=pl&q=Ho%C5%99ava%E2%80%93Witten&btnG=&lr=]), again pointing to the notability of the theory. Sławomir Biały (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

::There's also [http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v60/i8/e086001 this article] published in Phys Rev D about the theory (and itself gets over 250 gs cites). Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:HEY. The improved referencing makes clear that this is not just the work of an isolated unpublished paper (as if that weren't already obvious from the level of citation to that paper). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • STRONG Keep and add citations Horava-Witten string theory is certainly a very reknown string theory. Calling it "Original Research" is foolishness. This is the Horava - Witten paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9510209. I'll be adding the citation to it soon. P.S. And unlike ViXrA, ArXiV is certainly a reliable source. If you a're planning to delete it because ArXiV isn't a reliable source, then there are maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany articles you should be deleting as they are on ArXiV but not in a "reliable journal". It is known widely that Horava - Witten string theory is M - theory with a Horava - Witten boundary, i.e. compactified on a line segment. PLUS saying that the Motl paper is unreliable is very naive. The paper concluded the 2nd superstring revolution, and is widely known as the Heterotic form of Matrix string theory. Dimension10 (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

::::: Adding references: Done. ! Dimension10 (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

:::::: ArXiV is absolutely not a reliable source, though it is helpful to provide an ArXiV link for a paper later published elsewhere. -- 202.124.89.29 (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::::: You probably are saying this because you don't know what kind of an impact that paper has had on physics.Dimension10 (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::::: No, I'm saying that based on the policy in WP:RS and the fact that ArXiV is non-refereed. If someone were to totally rewrite the article based on reliable sources, it would be a "keep." -- 203.171.196.5 (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::: This paper has been cited an uncountable number of times in peer-reviewed journals. That's what I'm saying.Dimension10 (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep "Hořava–Witten" gets 963 hits in GScholar and 532 hits in GBooks; that search term includes Hořava–Witten string theory as well as the Hořava–Witten domain wall (another unsourced article) and the resulting Hořava–Witten cosmology. All three of these are related concepts and could be discussed in a single article. Along with the citation counts found by Sławomir Biały above, it is clear that this topic is notable. But the article has serious problems--almost all cited sources were originally related to a single author (Motl) resulting in an idiosyncratic view of of this theory. So the article looks to have a non-neutral point of view and be aWP:COATRACK for Motl's Anti-de Sitter space take on the theory. The refs also show the strong Motl bias; Ref 3 has Tom Banks as the first author on the paper, but Motl is listed first in the ref. Thanks goes to Dimension10 for adding the original primary refs, but the usual approach in these papers has not been incorporated into the article prose. Blowing up the article per WP:TNT is a reasonable course if these strong biases cannot be removed. But removing the biases are ultimately a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. I may have a go at it myself. A notable topic and surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking(talk) 16:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean up, or merge. Obviously, the work of Witen in devising an 11-dimension string theory is notable, as is the 1st article on the topic, even if none of this has been proven actually how the world is. I'm concerned that this is a coatrack. Can it be merged into somthing else? Bearian (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

:: It can't be merged into anything because it is hardly associated with its T-dual (Type I) and while it is associated with its S-dual (Type HE), Type HE is generally formulated as a peturbative theory, unlike Horava - Witten. Dimension10 (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete. No adequate sources. ArXiv is not a RS on its own. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC).
  • Unlike most peer-reviewed journals, putting something on arXiv does not make it into a reliable source. But the paper in question, "Proposals on nonperturbative superstring interactions", has nearly 300 citations on Google scholar, despite its lack of journal publication. To me that indicates that it may be considered reliable. However, the title of the Wikipedia article does not appear in that paper. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I see no indication that anyone has done due diligence regarding the topic of the article. There are many more reliable sources on Hořava–Witten theory that can be found in principle (see my posts above). The fact that the present article does not cite those is something that can be fixed by normal editing, not deletion. I don't know enough string theory to be able to comment much on the present state of the article, but the sources I have seen discuss Hořava–Witten theory as the strongly coupled limit of an E_8\times E_8 heterotic string theory and the low energy limit of M-theory in R^{10}\times S^1/\mathbb Z_2, and this does not seem to be mentioned in the current article. So there might be WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT issues that need addressing, but again those need to be dealt with by normal editing rather than deletion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

:::: Just a note: The article does state that the HW string theory is the S-dual of the Type HE and the interval compactification of M-theory.

::::You're convincing me that this is a case for WP:Blow it up and start over. What I'm hearing is that this article isn't about string theory as Hořava and Witten defined it, but about something quite different. -- 203.171.197.23 (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

::::::: Huh? What do you mean? Please read the Horava - Witten paper. M - theory with a Horava - Witten boundary = The S - dual of Type HE string theory. . .... Dimension10 (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

:::::Without anyone commenting in detail on the substance of the article or the sources, you are very easily convinced. No one here has committed even the most superficial assessment of either the article or available sources. What you should be convinced of is that the subject of this article is indeed notable and therefore the article should be kept. Blow it up and start over would require someone to assess the article a propos of sources in detail. Naturally, since this is AfD, that won't happen. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

::::::What do you mean, "No one here has committed even the most superficial assessment of either the article or available sources"? I've looked at the article, and to my (non-physicist) eyes it seems to me to be poorly-sourced WP:OR unrelated to what Hořava and Witten actually wrote. Unless we get support for the article from the Physics Wikiproject, which seems unlikely (given the way all the sister articles are being deleted), I'm still calling it a case for WP:TNT. -- 202.124.72.1 (talk) 06:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

:::::::: If it is to your "non - physicist eyes", how would you "know" that it is unrelated to Horava-Witten paper? Please read the Horava - Witten paper. Dimension10 (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

:::::::: So according to you the article should be deleted because you lack the technical expertise to assess it? That doesn't seem like a valid deletion argument. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

::::::::: No, I was saying (like the editors below) that the article was a WP:COATRACK for one person's opinion of the Horava - Witten work. -- 202.124.89.29 (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::::: Huh? Opinion? Physics is an objective science and all good papers in physics don't have "opinions". Dimension10 (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::::::: Maybe the article should cite some good papers, then. -- 203.171.196.5 (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::: "Good papers"? Motl's paper is one of the most impactful papers in String theory. Dimension10 (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::Checking some of the citations of the (still, after 16 years, unpublished) paper, I doubt that very much. And since it seems that you cannot find reliable sources, I am strengthening my "delete" !vote. -- 203.171.196.5 (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::: (1) Motl's paper IS a reliable source. Even standard textbooks like BBS mention it. (2) I have clearly stated other sources too. So instead of repeating the same nonsense again and again, get something better to do, than these attempts to get rid of good articles. . . And unlike what you say it in your "Delete" comment, the article IS about the topic, and now it cites the paper too. Dimension10 (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

UTC)

::::::::::Nonsense. You've not read and understood the article and papers describing the theory, so you're assessment that the article is a coatrack is entirely without foundation, based only on the fact that the article relies heavily on Motl's (highly cited and reliable) paper. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. The reason why everyone thinks that it overly cites the same paper is because of a strange error that puts 9 copies of the same references repeatedly. Dimension10 (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

:: Certainly the referencing is an absolute mess. -- 203.171.196.5 (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

::: It's fixed now. Dimension10 (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. : Has anyone noticed that absolutely ALL of the content refering to the so-called "unreliable paper", is supported by other sources too? . Dimension10 (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • UPDATE. I have fixed the issues. Now can the result be finalised as "Keep"? . Dimension10 (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • UPDATE. 5 people have said "keep" and 2 people have said "delete" (without valid reasons by the way) . The result is over isn't it? It's "keep", right? . . Dimension10 (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd consider a final "keep" outcome pretty much certain now. Improvements in the article (prompted by the discussion here) have contributed to that. Give the closing admins time to do their job. -- 202.124.89.30 (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2013 (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.