Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gluonic vacuum 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 keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Gluonic vacuum field[edit]
There is such a thing in physics as a gluonic vacuum field, but this article doesn't describe it. This article is a word salad of formulas and terminology culled from theoretical physics. This article belongs to a cluster of related articles, and contains overlapping content from one or more of: Coherence condition, Electromagnetic jet, Extended Yukawa potential, Nonlinear Coulomb field, Nonlinear magnetic field, w-field. All of these appear to have been created by one user: Rudchenko. Extensive discussion should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. linas 03:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: If there really is a thing called a gluonic vacuum field, then maybe we should clear this content and write up a stub. -- Barfooz (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, yes, well in that case, I'd say redirect to either casimir effect (which deals the vacuum of the photonic field) or color charge. Note that physicists wouldn't actually use the term Gluonic vacuum field, technically, its the vacuum state of the gluonic field. Even so, any such research is at best controversial, as QCD is unsolved, and a general formulation of vacuum is poorly understood. But whatever. I can write a stub that says this.linas 14:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think writing a stub would be a good idea, perhaps also for Quantization of the pionic interaction? Paul August ☎ 20:37, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, yes, well in that case, I'd say redirect to either casimir effect (which deals the vacuum of the photonic field) or color charge. Note that physicists wouldn't actually use the term Gluonic vacuum field, technically, its the vacuum state of the gluonic field. Even so, any such research is at best controversial, as QCD is unsolved, and a general formulation of vacuum is poorly understood. But whatever. I can write a stub that says this.linas 14:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Rudchenko *Comment: Rudchenko
is currently (as recently as yesterday) contributinghas 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 ☎ 22:01, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
- keep as a stub; or even better as a redirect. This phrase (or something similar) has been used to describe what is more widely known as gluon condensate (no wiki page on this yet!). So my vote is for a stub on gluon condensate and a redirect there through this page. Bambaiah 09:35, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Stub for gluon condensate added. Bambaiah 04:50, May 31, 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.