Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optical field

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 redirect to Electromagnetic field or an appropriate section thereof. Star Mississippi 01:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optical field

[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 definition is found in only one source. I contend that the source is not, in fact, providing a definition and the article author has misread it. This was triggered by a proposed merge discussion here. Futher discussion on the talk page of the article. Even if this was correct, it fails WP:DICDEF. SpinningSpark 07:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SpinningSpark 07:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is hardly defining anything; it is mostly a low-quality rehash of Electromagnetic wave. Google Scholar results are mostly about any EM field generated by an EM wave, e.g. the potential well described in Phys. Rev. Lett 69, 49 (1992), while this article is solely about the electric field component. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be just jargon favored by one source. Constant314 (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:HEY. The original description was not particularly helpful, but the topic is notable and it is an important part of optics theory. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The improvement has got rid of the misunderstanding, but all it has added of any substance is the same equation found at Electromagnetic field#Behavior of the fields in the absence of charges or currents. So in my opinion, WP:HEY still cannot justify a standalone article. The lead of the Electromagnetic field article in the very first paragraph says "The electromagnetic field propagates at the speed of light (in fact, this field can be identified as light)". That is all this article is saying and the EMF article already says it better. SpinningSpark 15:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone explain to me how this is a different concept than electromagnetic field? I'm not understanding how this is a different concept, and therefore worthy of anything but a redirect. PianoDan (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The optical field is the same as the electric field. It is just the name that some people use. Constant314 (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, at best this is a redirect, and perhaps add something like "in optics, this is called the optical field" by the relevant equation. SpinningSpark 15:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that, my recommendation is Redirect to electromagnetic field. PianoDan (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with redirect. Constant314 (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2022 (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.