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 delete‎. ✗plicit 13:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Page created by a new editor which was accepted at AfC in good faith by a reviewer who it appears does not have an extensive background in the science area. Following a brief discussion on the talk page, there are Toosoon, Notability, OR, NPOV and Dubious issues. Some more information added to AfD page. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Curtesy ping of @Johnjbarton, RangersRus, Jähmefyysikko, ReyHahn, and Cadaik:. As nominator I think there are multiple issues:

1. WP:TOOSOON, the article is based upon a 2023 paper and a 2024 paper, where the 2024 paper is the only one that cites the 2023 paper.
2. WP:N general lack of other sources to indicate that the neolism is notable.
3. WP:OR large sections of the page are unsourced and appear to be original research by the editor.
4. WP:NPOV page suggests that the approach is only relevant for low speeds, but fails to mention other issues. To quote from the abstract of the first source "Furthermore, the article shows that the modern formulation of Weber electrodynamics is clearly superior to standard electrodynamics in electrical engineering, because it not only eliminates internal contradictions, but also represents considerable simplification and compression." These hidden claims go far beyond what the text reveals.
5. WP:DUBIOUS without being specific, the article models diffraction from an edge and two slits without stating that it is giving a new, unsourced interpretation of the classic wave–particle duality. This is stated more clearly at the end of the open source code referenced in the page " It is plausible to assume that such real classical forces might be the true cause of all quantum effects. For more on this topic, see https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.23055584.v2". Wikipedia is not the place for such hidden claims. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954: Please remain objective. It is not relevant what you personally believes. There are convincing, comprehensible and unconcealed facts, evidence and simulation results.

I would now like to address the various points:

1. WP:TOOSOON / WP:N: The two aspects are connected and cannot be denied. I have read the guidelines and it is true that it is too early for a self-standing article. I therefore suggest a merge into Weber electrodynamics.
2. WP:NPOV "Furthermore, the article shows that the modern formulation of Weber electrodynamics is clearly superior to standard electrodynamics in electrical engineering, because it not only eliminates internal contradictions, but also represents considerable simplification and compression." The citation is from the abstract of one of the cited articles, which was published in a scientific journal and was apparently considered appropriate by the reviewers and the editors. This text cannot be found in the Wikipedia article. Where is neutrality violated when a source is cited?
3. WP:OR: "large sections of the page are unsourced and appear to be original research by the editor." This should be explained in more detail.
4. WP:DUBIOUS: Your raised objections do not refer to the Wikipedia page. The Wikipedia page shows examples of interference and diffraction from a classical point of view, where an electromagnetic wave is emitted by a dipole antenna and then reflected by a barrier of secondary dipoles. This is a common model. The source code is publicly available and cited. The preprint which you mention is not cited on the Wikipedia page and can be found only at the very end on https://github.com/StKuehn/OpenWME. The preprint is there only linked as an interesting side note. Specifically, the website says "... this example exceeds the usual field of application of electrical engineering considerably. It is an interesting by-product which arose during the development ..." The vast majority of the examples on https://github.com/StKuehn/OpenWME verify the predictions of Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics by means of known classical effects. This ensures that not only the theoretical derivation is correct (this is performed by mathematical proofs), but also that the practical results are convincing.

Cadaik (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: this page is about a couple of 2023/2024 papers which are barely cited, this is far from being WP:NOTABLE and indicates WP:RECENTISM or at least WP:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article. No review article on the topics exists for the moment. I would suggest not merging with Weber electrodynamics as the topics seems to be unrelated and Weber–Maxwelll electrodynamics is not used in the literature to refer to Weber electrodynamics.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge We have many, many instances where a newish peer-reviewed primary source is cited in support of one aspect of a notable topic. However in such cases the amount and breadth of the content needs to be in proportion to the impact of the source which in this case is very limited. The actual impact is the only thing that matters, not the potential, truthfulness, wonderfulness etc. I don't think this topic is bogus though a brief look at the cited authors other work leads me to think they have limited background outside of computational EM. Therefore I don't expect this topic to grow into something significant. In any case I would encourage @Cadaik to contribute to existing articles with more focus on reviews and secondary sources to get a feel for Wikipedia-ness. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the total lack of viable sources upon which an encyclopedia article could be built. None of the content is worth merging, for the same reason. Magnetism is an MDPI journal, meaning that it has no value. (Likewise, though of less importance here, the translations of historical sources are published by "Apeiron Montreal", a book imprint associated with a now-defunct fringe journal.) And to be polite, any claim like such real classical forces might be the true cause of all quantum effects faces a very steep hill to climb before it can be taken remotely seriously.XOR'easter (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  XOR'easter I was not able to find your quote "such real classical forces might be the true cause of all quantum effects" in the article. As far as I can tell this is quote from Ldm1954 referring to a source which is also not cited by the article. I don't think it is fair to discredit the article on the basis of a blog post not cited or discussed in the article and on a topic unrelated to the article. The software demonstrations of wave diffraction do not appear to me to be notable as they appear quite similar to ripple tank models. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Johnjbarton, the quote is verbatim from the bottom of reference 16, OpenWME, cited in the article and used in the reinterpretation of diffraction. All the Figures except the first were created with OpenWME (trace to the media wiki source). @XOR'easter usage was correct. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "such real classical forces might be the true cause of all quantum effects" => The accent is on the word might here. "might" does not mean "are". The argumentation is then presented in a lengthy preprint. Science means to walk through the world with open eyes and to study interesting things when one notices them. It must always be possible to post interesting things. Cadaik (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because there are no reliable secondary sources which we could use to verify the content (per WP:V). This is even more important, since revamping classical electrodynamics would be an WP:extraordinary accomplishment which would need strong evidence. (even if there are limits with regard to relativistic speeds) Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yikes. Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to walk through the world with open eyes or post interesting things. Science, if at all done, should be done somewhere very far from here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course not. This statement was referring to a post somewhere in one of the secondary sources. It has nothing to do with the WP article. The article discusses a topic of classical non-relativistic electrodynamics and not quantum mechanics. Cadaik (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is already adequately covered insofar as it might be sourceable, rendering what is not unsourceable redundant. —Quondum 21:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is 1/2 step away from original research, or what we call synthesis. In any secondary or tertiary source, every sentence and paragraph must have a citation. We just went through this on another AfD. If you don’t understand that, then you shouldn’t be writing or reviewing articles here. Every student at a community college should know that. Having taught secondary school physics and having written physics articles myself, which were peer reviewed but then rejected for publication, I can state that this is just too cutting edge for an encyclopedia. I can’t, however, figure whether it’s a correct. It’s mostly unsourced, so I can’t evaluate the subject matter. If someone wants to submit this to a journal, they can, or ArXiv, or a blog, or if really inspired they can present it at a SF con, but just not here. Bearian (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bearian In my opinion there is no need to characterize the editor efforts here in harshly negative personal terms. The presentation is logical and clear. The sourcing here is quite a bit more extensive than most physics articles I have read and worked on. The bulk of the article is clearly derived from two peer reviewed papers by S. Kuhn; the IEEE should be considered a reliable peer review. Sure a few more paragraphs could have citations, but they would still point to the same two sources. That is the problem: this is basically a summary of on primary source. The issue as pointed out by the other posts here is the lack of secondary sources. Let's try to focus on content and not disparage editors. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Got it. My point was not to bite the newbie. The problem is to distinguish between types of sources. I’ll be more careful. Bearian (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.