Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutual energy

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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual energy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is WP:OR, and I can't make any sense of it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have added this afd to the above lists in the hope that editors expert in these fields can have a look at this and explain what its about, also, there is a similar article to this one - Advanced wave. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree; if the result here is to draft-ify that article should be moved as well; with any other result it should probably have a separate discussion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Advanced wave should also be deleted. We already have an article on the legitimate use of that term. XOR'easter (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know I shouldn't have laughed when I saw that the linked article was called "Retarded potential". What can I say? I am a bad person. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref. "I am a bad person" : You're clearly not suited for becoming president ;-) -- DexterPointy (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, WP:NOT may apply to these? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sticking my neck out here - well outside my area of expertise; but from what I can see, this article spends 50% of its real estate on summarizing material already covered elsewhere, and the rest on an enormous blob of original research. All done in borderline incomprehensible prose. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy Keep this is a good article for many reasons. Please contact me for additional information. Brian Everlasting (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Above editor is the main contributor to the article. DMacks (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

No, they're not: their only edit to the article is fixing a typo. – Uanfala (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. @Brian Everlasting: it doesn't work that way. Discussion is on-wiki, and wiki article content needs to be supported by on-wiki citations to reliable sources (compare to WP:FRINGE). DMacks (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft (Move to Draft) - It's in the neighbourhood of broken English, and it's in conflict with this part of WPNOT.
@Brian Everlasting: : Would you consider offering to become a "ghostwriter" and peer-reviewer on it? -- DexterPointy (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This Draft/Article has previously been in trouble, ref. User talk:Imrecons -- DexterPointy (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the editor's contribution history so far, I would have zero confidence in him producing anything useful from "ghostwriting" this article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After spending quite some time searching, I got wiser, and the below picked findings are perhaps the most helpful.

- http://www.openscienceonline.com/journal/archive2?journalId=726&paperId=4042

- https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_collapse_of_the_wave_function_a_dynamical_process

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Archive_May_2015#A_draft_article_for_your_consideration

My "Conclusion": This particular "Mutual Energy theorem" seems to be the brainchild of one single individual (Shuang ren Zhao), and only endorsed by a fairly narrow group connected to him. If that's true, then it's not suited for a Wikipedia article.
-- DexterPointy (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So there seems to be some papers on the concept of "Mutual Energy", the earliest is "The simplification of formulas of electromagnetic fields by using mutual energy formula" S Zhao - Journal of Electronics, PR of China, 1989 [1] This published in an obscure journal with 4 citations. There are other articles on the subject [2] all featuring S Zhao, all in arvix or open access publications with few citations. This looks like a small group of related publications which has not had received acknowledgement from the wider academic community. --Salix alba (talk): 16:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising for a concept that has received no scholarly recognition, and it's squatting on the name of a legitimate term one sees occasionally (synonymous with interaction energy). XOR'easter (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article consists of a mix of (1) well-known facts described in a confusing way, (2) true but obscure and non-notable facts, (3) utter nonsense. --Steve (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Assume we have a transformator." Yeah, right... The article is close to illiterate. Was it automatically translated? If so, maybe the original made some sense in whatever language it was written but it probably was not any sort of an encyclopaedia article and any sense it did have does not seem to have survived the process. This makes it impossible to evaluate whether there is a real topic here, whether it is correctly named or whether we already cover it under some other name. I suggest a good dose of WP:TNT with no prejudice to anybody who understands the alleged topic, and who can explain it coherently, having another try. I suggest also looking at Advanced wave which is by the same author although perhaps not so glaringly incoherent. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've now created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced wave.--Salix alba (talk): 18:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sbyrnes321 (talk · contribs) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Badly written and OR, wrong in many places. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mostly incoherent gobbledygook. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete (and do not draftify). To the extent that this is not just buzzword/equation salad, with classical references thrown in haphazardly to make it look important, it appears to be original research. Certainly it is not of any use to readers. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sbyrnes321 (talk · contribs). The article is so full of technobabble that, as Pauli said, it is not even wrong. --MaoGo (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The most of the topic is covered on other places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GentlemanY (talk • contribs) 13:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Inductance, Bearian (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge. The article is too flakey to have any place on Wikipedia. if anything Redirect. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - I expected an article related to this, and what I got was a great big load of bollocks. Fringe science doesn't belong. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 20:07, 17 July 2018 (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.