Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartesian well

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. --Coredesat 07:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cartesian well

Cartesian_well (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Case for keeping "Cartesian well"

The issue arose when I came across the term when researching Rene Descartes (though it has nothing directly to do with his work), and I claimed that it was just an error for "Artesian well" - a bore hole in an Artesian basin (after the Artois region of France). I would be happy with deletion or re-direction if this was the only meaning.

Then I recalled a vague memory from undergraduate Quantum mechanics many years ago. I am still researching this. Please allow me time to consult experts to obtain an accurate definition, or allow time for other Wikipedians to expand on my vague definition.

The philosophical usage needs further research. I have found only joking references up to now, but I am told by a Wiktionarian that there seems to be a serious sense in which the term is used.

In the spirit of Wikipedia, could we not put a note that usage is still being researched, rather than rush to delete?

Thanks. Dbfirs 15:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - Joke page or hoax. --EMS | Talk 14:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Neither, but I agree that it is not yet a Wikipedia article. I was hoping that someone could help. I was taught my Quantum mechanics by an American called Stan (I can't remember his last name, sorry) many years ago, and my memory is fading, but do you know any Quantum mechanics specialists who might help? Dbfirs 17:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It's been years since I did QM myself. As for the article: If it is not a joke or hoax, then I still would still call for a strong delete based on Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and a WP:NOR violation due to this usage being a neologism. The best that you could ever hope to get out of me is a transwiki to Wiktionary, but neologisms do not belong there either. --EMS | Talk 03:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - plenty of non-artesian well hits but not a single one of them is using it in this context — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Often, one speaks of solving the Schrödinger Equation in a square well, which one describes using Cartesian coordinates, but I've never heard the term "Cartesian well" used to cover this situation. No doubt a few sources do so, but "square well" and "particle in a box" are vastly more common. Anville 21:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to particle in a box per Anville. JulesH 21:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Artesian well, because I think "Cartesian well" would be a misnomer for Artesian well much more often than it would be entered by someone researching the Schrodinger Equation. To the author, I would say that it's inefficient to create a Wikipedia article that doesn't meet our standards. Save it on your hard drive, not in the encyclopedia, and post it when and if you think it can withstand the inevitable AfD scrutiny. JamesMLane t c 14:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable, rare neologism. An encyclopedia should document existing concepts not create new ones. --Pjacobi 09:43, 5 May 2007 (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.