The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete as fringe original research that will never be suitable as an article. As happens somewhat frequently, while it would probably use less editor time to handle this outside MfD, it is still within the scope of this forum to delete it if the discussion consensus so indicates. RL0919 (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Dimensional Field Theory

[edit]

Promoting WP:FRINGE physics theories; possibly their own original research. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The following was entered on the talk page of the MFD page, and should probably be treated as a Keep by the author. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a fringe topic. Topics regarding "extra dimensions" are valid for possible candidates of physics beyond the current standard model.

Fermilab Collaboration. "Magnetic-field measurement and analysis for the Muon g − 2 Experiment at Fermilab". Journals.aps.org. PHYSICAL REVIEW A. Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration. "First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. VIII. Magnetic Field Structure near The Event Horizon". iop.org. The Astrophysical Journal Letters. XENON1T Collaboration. "Excess Electronic Recoil Events in XENON1T". arXiv.org. arXiv. DES COllaboration. "Dark Energy Survey Year 3 Results: A 2.7% measurement of Baryon Acoustic Oscillation distance scale at redshift 0.835". arXiv.org. arXiv. https://link.springer.com/article. "Migdal effect in dark matter direct detection experiments". Journal of High Energy Physics. Journal of High Energy Physics. Hippasus2sqrt (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ at least until the draft is reviewed by a physicist. It appears to me that it is not mainstream physics, and that almost all of the references are to one author, but, to paraphrase Spock, I'm a chemist, not a physicist. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Requesting a review at WikiProject Physics. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is complete insanity. A barely coherent collection of buzzwords which the author clearly doesn't understand. The statements are usually meaningless, and when by chance the string of words achieves a well-defined meaning it is wrong. The sources are all from a single author, all self-published, so it's a hard fail on notability and reliable sourcing grounds. Tercer (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as per review by a physicist. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is a meaningless collection of nonsense. Sources are inappropriate and the content is inadequate. --SimoneD89 (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tercer and SimoneD89. First, it's not physics; second, it's not an example of pseudo-physics that has become notable as such; third, in the unlikely eventuality that it did, none of the existing text would be suitable for an article on it. XOR'easter (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:NDRAFT. This would be deleted in mainspace per WP:NOR, but draftspace is not mainspace. It has not even been REJECTED. AfC encourages these things, and has processes for these things, follow the AfC processes (ignore, DECLINE, REJECT, G13) and don’t bring things prematurely to MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to remind you of WP:BURO (which unlike WP:NDRAFT is an actual policy). This draft is obviously going nowhere, letting it follow AfC procedures is just wasting everybody's time. Tercer (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur with Tercer here; there was nothing premature about this nomination. It's been declined; if it were allowed to languish on, it would be declined again. XOR'easter (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is premature because when User:Dan arndt declined the draft he used the template that tells the author to edit improve and submit, unambiguously telling them that it is not hopeless. If that was the wrong template to use, then tell Dan, and/or contribute to the active discussion on this at WT:AfC.

AfC is a WikiProject that attracts and encourages these things, and it has fair processes, and process problems like this one should not be dumped straight into MfD, but considered and addressed at AfC.

Bringing non-deletion matters (WP:FRINGE is not a line at WP:NOT; and the nom’s NOR argument is too tentative) for forced discussion at MfD is a misuse of MfD.

The proper application of Ignore, Decline, and Reject, of drafts wastes much less editor time than bring harmless worthless drafts to MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the AfC review result from DECLINE to REJECT. It now should sit, for the author to read and understand at their leisure, until cleanuped up by WP:G13 processing. If the author ignores the review response, only then bring it to mfd. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 15 August 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.