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 no consensus. Bu I think that on the basis on this discussion a merger would not be opposed by many. Sandstein 12:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious duality[edit]

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

As far as I can tell not notable. The fact that this duality does not have a proper name 10 year after the first publication, and that that publication has only gathered 43 citations should be an indication that its not.T R 10:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC) T R 10:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - leaving aside whether this is notable, there are no citations in the article (and haven't been for nearly 2 years). The article as it now is fails to give the general reader any kind of idea what the concept in question is, or even what the words used to describe it (compactification? blowing-up k points?). If it's to be kept it needs a lot of explanation. And citations, of course. Let's delete it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are actual reasons for deletion. The ref issue is easy enough to resolve, if the subject is deemed notable enough. (Which I think it isn't)T R 17:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its notability looks very doubtful, and your arguments have some weight. If the article is to remain then it needs a lot of work - cleanup, expansion, wikifying, etc.Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep. The original paper introducing this topic is by one of the leading string theorists, and is well known to experts: it has picked up about 50 references from other papers, so is notable enough for wikipedia. The other reasons mentioned above may be reasons for improving the article but are not reasons for deleting it. r.e.b. (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that any paper with 50+ citations is notable, in the sense that it should have its own article on wikipedia? That seems a bit over the top doesn't it?T R 05:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In fairness, I definitely agree that this duality is very mysterious; after all, it appears to elude attempts at explaining it in a Wikipedia article for years. It's so mysterious that, I reckon, the secret society of string theory physicists would have to kill us all if they told us about it; it's so mysterious that it's science's best kept secret. Mysteriously, I can find little about this topic that I can understand, and I feel a bit of a duality as a result. The topic seems to be notable only within discourse between advanced-level string theorists themselves -- that is, there is no general readership concept that the article can cover, because it looks like the concept itself is so reliant on advanced string theory. In summary, it's notable only in-universe within the string theory community but not encyclopaedically for Wikipedia and, mysteriously, I must therefore (dualistically) vote for deletion. --Tristessa (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are loads of high-quality citations in the literature. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is actually true, Slawomir. A Google Scholar search for the term "mysterious duality" shows the arXiv e-print of the authors' paper got 45 citations, many of which were in decent journals; but (all?) of those citing articles don't seem to use the term themselves, rather they are referring to the construction of the duality. The 2002 peer-reviewed publication of the same paper got only 2 citations, both of which were in the same journal. Beyond the first few hits it appears that the rest of the uses of the term are incidental, i.e. they are using "mysterious" as an adjective on "duality", not the term "mysterious duality", and have nothing to do with this construction at all. --Tristessa (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The peer reviewed paper was published in 2001, not 2002. Your google scholar search only shows papers citing it with the wrong publication date. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slawomir: the one with all the citations is the (non peer-reviewed) arXiv pre-print; so in which case, where's the correct journal published version in the hits? If it was simply that the cited publication date was wrong, you'd see the appearance of two peer-reviewed publications of the paper in the same journal, and most of the citations would be against the correct one. --Tristessa (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the record on inspire, which automatically links the arxiv and published one. This returns 36 citations.T R 16:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tristessa: Google scholar is confused. You can easily check for yourself that the references listed here mostly refer to the peer reviewed paper that appeared in Advances in Theoretical Mathematics and Physics. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (perhaps redirect) Given that this is cited by 43 or 45 other papers it may not qualify as a notable topic. The intro of the source article at least gives an explanation of what the authors are attempting to achieve [1], in the first three paragraphs. However, I quickly get lost in the jargon of the original paper and the Wikipedia article. Unfortunately I am not able to determine notability. Are there any other criteria to look at (for notability) besides citation numbers?. The paper appears to be about duality symmetries in string theory. This appears to be covered already in String duality, which may make this article irrelevant. In that case I say redirect if my assessment is accuracte. Or delete if "mysterious duality" is a useless term. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How so? It has many citations in reliable sources independently of the original paper which, I might add, itself was reliably published, and is authored by at least one leading expert on string theory (Cumrun Vafa). By the letter of WP:GNG, this seems to be more than enough to warrant inclusion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So all papers by Vafa are automatically notable? More to the point can you give references that actually refer to this as "Mysterious duality"?T R 14:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on four of these many citations at random. One didn't mention the concept by name except in the reference. One was a passing reference. One had a sentence and a half of coverage. One shared a co-author. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, my own experience seems to be similar. For me the argument for keep is growing substantially weaker. More expert input, from User:r.e.b. or User:Lumidek would be helpful. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified r.e.b. for further comment. Lubos seems to be MIA. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as there is any notability in this topic, it appears to be in the observation that there is a link between the geometry of del Pezzo surfaces and M-theory compactified on a torus. (This is what most articles citing the article "a mysterious duality" cite it for.) This probably warrants a mention on the del Pezzo surface page. The term "mysterious duality" however seems to be a neologism. (I've yet to find any evidence for its usage as a term for this duality.) I would also argue that the duality as such does not meet the WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage of the duality in secondary literature. (Although I'm open to be proven wrong on the last point by somebody providing an explicit example.) This article should therefore probably not be redirected, but simply deleted.T R 14:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If all else fails userfy. I'm not convinced deletion is the correct option for the encyclopedia, but I suppose we have to accept that in some cases interesting ideas in theoretical physics do get "put on the backburner". The General Notability criteria are not that useful in determining when it makes sense to treat such concepts as fireworks with faulty fuses. The way science works is that ideas can morph, and you need an expert to point out where the terminology changes or concepts get adjusted. Survey articles are for that, in part. Then merge options exist, also. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the article section M-theory#Mysterious duality. Notability seems dubious for a stand-alone article, in particular given the neologistic quality of the title, but sufficient for inclusion there. (Del Pezzo surface is another potential target, but M-theory seems more appropriate.) --Lambiam 09:31, 7 October 2011 (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.