Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W-field

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] W-field

This page appears to a crank physics page; the topic is at best obscure, the text appears to be filled with errors, inaccuracies, dubious statements, and a general jumble of formulas using notation from a variety of different disciplines. I beleive this page constitues original research. The topic may well be legit, but I don't beleive that it is possible to rescue this page by merely editing it. It appears to be a part of a cluser of dubious pages: Coherence condition, Electromagnetic jet, Extended Yukawa potential, Nonlinear Coulomb field, Nonlinear magnetic field, w-field and possibly also Quantization of the pionic interaction all of which appear to have been created by one user: Rudchenko. Particularly alarming is the claim By unknown reason it is remain beyond attention of physicists that exist the classical field which connect between themselves all type of forces. I think the reason is well-known :-) Extensive discussion should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. linas 18:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No references. Seems to be gibberish. High amount of internal linkage to doubtful articles (all written by a single author, without a user-page, who has almost only contributed to these articles). --R.Koot 21:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless a reliable source is cited for this content. Paul August ☎ 16:01, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've been trying to figure out what these articles are about for a while now, and although the math makes some sense, the text makes none and no one else has been able to figure it out yet. I think the author means for the w-field to be the four-velocity, which has a more accessible article already. --Laura Scudder | Talk 18:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Rudchenko *Comment: Rudchenko is currently (as recently as yesterday) contributing has contributed using an anon IP, (see: 194.44.210.6), and probably also contributed as: 195.184.220.198 and 213.130.21.162. I've left a note on User talk:194.44.210.6 about these VfDs. So perhaps he/she will come here to shed some light on these articles. Paul August ☎ 20:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Correction: I misread 194.44.210.6, taking Mar 22 to be May 22. Of the anons listed above, the most recent edits seems to be for 213.130.21.162 on 6 May. I've added the same note on User talk:194.44.210.6 as well. Paul August ☎ 21:59, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.