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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SCOP formalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This has barely been edited since the last discussion three years ago, and none of the edits are substantial. I am torn as to whether this is legitimate physics, as the way it is presented has a fringey odor. I see little sign, however, that it is a notable idea. First, searching for SCOP formalism produces tons of false hits, because there is another idea with the same name: Spherical Complex Optical Potential formalism, which I gather has something to do with analysing biomolecular structures. Looking for "State Context Property" formalism gets rid of about 60% of the GScholar hits, and while the original 2002 paper was oft-cited, interest has waned rapidly, and citations of later papers never gets out of the single digits. Someone else will have to speak to the quality of the various journals involved, but I personally do not get a good feeling about this article. If kept it would need to be renamed for clarity, as it's clear enough that the other use of "SCOP" is more common. Mangoe (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination just seems to amount to vague feelings of unease but AfD is not cleanup. The topic has attracted sustained interest – papers such as The state context property formalism: from concept theory to the semantics of music and the rest is then a matter of ordinary editing not deletion, per WP:ATD, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:NEXIST, &c. Per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Andrew🐉(talk) 17:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  My understanding of the nomination is that sources are mostly that of a main author indicating a lack of notability. I could verify that one independent source mentions it, the Busemeyer one. Among others that don't seem to be by Aerts there seem to be two more, I couldn't verify both but one is used for WP:SYNTHesis. If you find other such sources it may be the time to list or add them to the article, demonstrating the formalism has been used and discussed by more people. —PaleoNeonate – 05:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The other author of that, Bruza, has collaborated with Aerts (for example here), making that a bit too close to count as fully independent. I'd call it WP:PRIMARY. XOR'easter (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Entirely a promotion of Diederik Aerts, pushing an idea that has not been adequately surveyed by secondary or tertiary sources in a way that would establish its noteworthiness. All the citations in the article are to Aerts or a coauthor (the first author on the paper linked above is Aerts' postdoc). XOR'easter (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @XOR'easter: is there a reason that deletion is preferable to redirection to Aerts bio? Guettarda (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's more than one meaning for "SCOP formalism". Actually, the other meaning mentioned in the nomination (Spherical Complex Optical Potential) seems more common. XOR'easter (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Borderline fringe theory, that nobody but the main author and his students care about it. Tercer (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if this isn't fringe theory/pseudoscience then it's awfully close to it. The key issue for AfD is simply that there seems to be no genuine, independent, secondary sourcing, so we have little or no evidence of Notability. I wouldn't specially oppose delete and redirect to Diederik Aerts, though that article has recently been extensively edited by an SPA and 61 of its 70 sources are also primary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Diederik Aerts. No particular reason this couldn't have been done without AfD except that it previously went through the ringer. I have no objections to preserve history. jps (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of noteworthiness in secondary sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough secondary coverge to warrant it's own article. Maybe just add/merge a few sentances to Diederik Aerts. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2021 (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.