Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sub-Planck

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 Redirect to Planck scale and relevant information that is solidly referenced can be merged there, please. Eyes on the target article would be useful here. Black Kite 00:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-Planck

Sub-Planck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Article fails to assert notability and searches reveal an utter lack of reliable sources for this POV fork or fringe theory. Jehochman ^Talk 00:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not for speculation. The only source at this time is a letter to the editor, which is not at all a reliable source. Jehochman ^Talk 00:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• If somebody can demonstrate reliable sources sufficient to write an article that is more than a stub, I'd be willing to change my opinion. Jehochman ^Talk 12:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See my !vote below for an explanation of Nature's idiosyncratic terms for "articles" vs. "letters" vs. "correspondence". The Zurek source is in fact peer-reviewed. Skinwalker (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• keep -- "Sub-Planck structure in phase space and its relevance for quantum decoherence" may carry the title of a "letter", but is in fact a publication in Nature, a peer-reviewed journal. This article doesn't concern "things made up in school one day", but research published by the respected Los Alamos National Laboratory-- see "Sub-Planck Structures in Phase Space and Heisenberg-Limited Measurements". John254 02:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Google scholar finds over 200 articles with sub-planck in them somewhere, 16 of them with it in the title, and the Zurek Nature letter has close to 100 citations. So it seems likely that there's enough content for an article on the subject. However, the article should be rewritten to describe what the literature actually says about this regime, rather than the current article which besides being "hypothetical, speculative, and conjectural" is also too vague to be useful. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Planck scale. "Sub-Planck" is just a dicdef, like submillimeter or subsonic or subbass, and there's nothing particularly worth saying about it that's not better said in the longer article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bm gub (talk • contribs) 02:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This article describes a theoretical physics concept. It is not a dictionary definition, and has a far more subtle meaning than the mere linguistic result of prepending the prefix "sub" to Planck scale. John254 02:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Per John254. -- Antonio Lopez ^(talk)03:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The actual physics concept is the Planck scale, all of the relevant theory deals with defining this scale and describing what happens at this scale. You're going to see exactly the same theories (if any) in this article as in Planck scale, with nothing particularly new occurring as you shrink things further. I'd be happy to see a counterexample---what on earth is imagined to occur at 10^-38 m that doesn't also occur at 10^-35? Bm gub (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: Not fringe, and not made up in school one day. The Planck scale is the limit of conceptions of physics; what happens beyond is a legitimate subject of scholarly inquiry, including whether anything we know applies. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• The overwhelming majority view in Physics is that nothing can be observed on a sub-Planck scale. Hence, this article is a fringe view. It is also original research. The topic can be covered in Planck scale quite nicely with a simple definition. There's no need for a separate article that has no reliable sources. Jehochman ^Talk 12:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Reads as original research or novel synthesis. I checked for reliable sources and found none. The discussions comment that this might be a hypothetical cocnept if it ever gets accepted, which is fine, but it hasn't been yet. We need peer-reviewed sources. Guy (Help!) 07:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - ...what happens beyond is a legitimate subject of scholarly inquiry... ...but Wikipedia is not the place to do that scholarly inquiry. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 08:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - it's a legitimate subject and the article as it stands now is harmless and represents the external sources well. CKCortez (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't actually say that much and seems more like someones musings on the subject. Alberon (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Planck scale. I accept that the term "sub-Planck scale" is used in physics but not that it needs its own article. Merging to a more watched article will help ensure it keeps a neutral tone with no original research. At present this is of a size where it would be fine as a subheading in Planck scale and I'm not sure there's scope for much expansion. If I turn out to be wrong and it grows too large for a subheading it can be split at that time. (PS If it is kept, please consider renaming to "sub-Planck scale"! "Sub-Planck scale" means "sub-(Planck scale)" not "(sub-Planck) scale", and I prefer nouns to adjectives for article titles.) Qwfp (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: absolutely no content here. "Hypothetical, speculative, and conjectural physics" -- if any were presented, that would be original research; but in fact nothing is presented at all, the article has no real content. All it says is "it is possible ... or maybe something else ... or maybe no conceptual or mathematical description can be found..." and that's all. Nothing here that isn't already in Quantum gravity, or Planck scale, or any of the much better-written physics articles we already have. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Current activity and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Ekjon Lok. linas (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep – If it's explored in Nature, it is nearly by definition not fringe. It may be new, or small, but it's certainly worthy of an article. – ClockworkSoul 19:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge referenced sections to Planck scale ater cutting out the majority of the current article which is primarily, original research, speculation and essay like prose. Guest9999 (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Planck scale, as there doesn't appear to be enough sourcing to warrant a spin-off or standalone article. If the article is kept, then at bare minimum it needs to be stubbed and tagged for a complete rewrite, and the WP:OWNership issues will need careful attention as well. MastCell ^Talk 19:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Planck scale. (Though the real problem with the article is the total lack of quality, not the subject matter.)PhysPhD (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Planck scale. Legitimate topic, but not much more to be said than 'gosh, it sure would be nice if we could probe those energies'. If it is kept as a stand-alone article, rename to Sub-Planck scale per User:Qwfp. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge a heavily pruned subsection into Planck scale. About the only good source I can find is the Nature letter by Zurek, which is in fact peer reviewed. Short articles in Nature are termed "letters", and are subject to rigorous peer review. This[1] section of the journal's guide to authors explains the difference between articles and letters. What would be considered "letters to the editor" are termed "correspondence", as indicated here[2]. Everything in Sub-Planck but the Zurek reference, frankly, reeks of the Bogdanovs. Skinwalker (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge that part which is not speculation and WP:OR, and is from a WP:RS, into Planck scale. Even if all the speculation were included, there's not enough for a separate article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge or delete Too much speculation, too much discussion "We cannot know, but we can make fun guesses." Heisenburg is rolling over in his grave. Justin Eiler (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge what is solidly referenced to Planck scale. --Reinoutr (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This is indeed a real term, but the page as it is now is completely original reserach. Delete without prejudice to recreation RogueNinja_talk 19:28, 11 March 2008 (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.