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. Star Mississippi 03:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhatia - Hazarika Limit[edit]

Bhatia - Hazarika Limit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Term does not appear to actually be used. Zero results in scholar. Zero results in books. There's a cite to a paper by Bhatia and Hazarika where I assume the name comes from, but "Bhatia-Hazarika Limit" doesn't seem to be a term. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: is this supposed to be the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit? The English is so awkward I can't quite tell. The author has inserted this in the neutron star and stellar black hole articles. Praemonitus (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also GW190814 and GW170817. I have removed it from all four. XOR'easter (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree this article is hard to follow and it's hard to know exactly how to clean it up. Also, per the nominator's search and the previous AfD, this term is not remotely notable. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is indeed a duplicate of Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit written by a user who clearly has poor English skills. The initial versions of two other articles by Laqy-peenu (talk · contribs) that are at AfD, Anish Dayal Singh [1] and Nigar Shaji [2], had similarly poor grammar. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: or at best, Redirect to Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit, assuming the term is actually used somewhere. Owen× ☎ 23:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination, not notable. Only one existing article reference mentions the limit and that is a ad-supported site, one paragraph with no references. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without redirecting anywhere. This is a neologism for a concept that wouldn't deserve its own article anyway (how including rotation changes the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff calculation). The cited paper by Bhatia and Hazarika is about something else and doesn't even include it. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2024 (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.