Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Picture (string theory)

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picture (string theory)

[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)

Seems to fail WP:NOTDICTIONARY, most references seem to be reproducing this article. Plus, unsourced since 2009. But I'd appreciate someone who knows more about the topic chiming in. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into RNS formalism. Keep after the prose and reference improvements by XOR'easter. The idea of a picture and associated picture-changing operators exists in string theory. Here are two articles that discuss the concept Geometrical framework for picture changing operators in the pure spinor formalism, Picture changing operators in supergeometry and superstring theory and a review paper that discusses it Integral Forms and Applications. I'm not sure if this rises to the level of a notable topic. Merging into the article RNS formalism, the representation where pictures were first described, would be a possibility, but it is not a perfect target. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete No references means no content should be merged. Since RNS formalism say nothing about "picture" delete would be fine for now. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Picture changing operator (yes, the article does not currently exist), Keep per improvements made to the article and sources added. there must be sources defining a "picture" in some scientific paper somewhere, but that doesn't mean there's a lot of papers talking about what a picture itself is. There appear to be a lot of papers talking about what a Picture-changing operator is. If someone who understands the topic a little bit could quickly define a picture-changing operator this solution would resolve the issue with having to merge it into one representation when (I think this is what @Mark viking is saying) they are relevant to multiple. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have rewritten the article and provided sources. It's easier to search for "picture changing operator", since "picture" has many informal uses when talking about physics, but the idea of a "picture" (in this specific, highly technical sense) is more logically fundamental than the idea of transforming between them. So, the current title is a little better than picture changing operator would be, although it probably doesn't matter too much. A merge wouldn't be out of the question, but I'm having a hard time finding a uniquely good target, so I think keeping the page where it is would be best. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the improvements; I didn't understand the material well enough to write a good summary myself. Changing my !vote to keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter thank you for doing that! I think we can close this as keep, I'll withdraw it. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as being significantly sourced. I’m not sure if it’s substantively correct, since it’s not be proven. Bearian (talk) 03:34, 1 December 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.