Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Physics

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging of articles related to Physics. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and neither does removing an AfD from this page remove it from the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:deletion sorting|Physics|sig=~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Physics. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from May 2019) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Physics/archive

watch

Physics

Launch angle

Launch angle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose draftifying because the current article reads like a dictionary and as it pertains to fiberoptics and electromagnetics, it appears non-notable and only cites one source. However, I think as it pertains to sports such as golf and baseball it may actually be notable, though it will need work which I can take care of. This is also what the majority of the online articles referencing launch angles are talking about. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 12:34, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Physics, Baseball, and Technology. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 12:34, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment: My first instinct is that it looks like a DAB page. WP:DAB says [...] there is more than one existing English Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. I did find a few academic papers (and the Standard cited on the page, of course) using the term in the optics context, so it's not unreasonable that a person can search for them.

Maybe we can fold the current three sentences about optics into their respective articles and link to those sections, then also link to a Launch angle (sport) or Launch angle (projectile motion) page of sorts. LkL-70547 (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

That's a good point, although it'd be good have some more secondary sources if possible. I'll support that as long as the sourcing is adequate for a separate article. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 15:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

A properly dab-ified version of this page could link to Glossary of baseball terms#launch angle, at least for now - I haven't thought about it before, but I'd guess there would be enough sourcing out there for someone to write a full article on it, or at least an expanded section in Statcast. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 23:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps for now we redirect to the glossary, and maybe get a Launch angle (projectile motion) started rotting in Draft namespace, and if it gets up to publishable, we turn the redirect into a DAB. With regards to putting that sourcing somewhere, we could write an expanded section of Statcast (and if it gets too big we split it off), but I'm worried that would fit in awkwardly with the current article layout. If we can't figure out where it'd go, we could draftify that too, perhaps. I also think if the sourcing is sparser than I hope (which, alas, seems to be the case often), I could still thicken out that definition in the glossary a little, because it's looking short even with regards to other entries on the page. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 02:54, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Radical-pair mechanism

Radical-pair mechanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Content fork that should be redirected to Magnetoreception#Cryptochrome. The main image already appears in that page, and also in the pages Cryptochrome and Quantum biology, and the topic is also mentioned in CIDNP#Radical pair mechanism. (It was previously a redirect to the CIDNP page. but that does not look right to me as that topic seems to be different science.) The Magnetoreception page is much more general, more a neutral point of view. Some of the content might be merged there, although it needs an expert in the area. (For instance I am not convinced that the section on xenon in the current page is appropriate. It might be plausible to create a page on the general properties of excited radical pairs with correllations to NMR and other science, but that would go far beyond the stated focus here.) Ldm1954 (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Chemistry, Medicine, Organisms, and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  N.B., there is also a redirect Radical-pair-based chemical magnetoreception that should be cleaned up. Also Spin chemistry#Radical-pair mechanism, a mention in Frustrated Lewis pair and Magnetobiology plus more in a search. Not all of these are the same science. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, with cleanup of overlapping material. The radical-pair mechanism is not limited to cryptochrome or avian magnetoreception; it is a general mechanism in spin chemistry with applications to magnetic-field effects in chemical reactions, CIDNP/CIDEP, photosynthetic systems, and other areas. It has substantial treatment in independent reviews, including Turro (1983) and Ivanov et al. (2017). Redirecting the title to one biological application would therefore be too narrow. Any duplicated magnetoreception material can be trimmed or merged without removing the broader article. Bifmark (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  That would be WP:TNT as it would be a complete change of the topic. It would require significant rationalisation of the content in multiple articles (see the search link I gave). I have no problem with that as a longer term solution (plus a disambiguation), but I do think a wider concensus is needed, beyond this discussion. I have already raised the larger issue at WT:Chemistry#Potpourri of uses of radical pair. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  Bifmark, if this debate does end in a decision to redirect, this would not stop you from drafting the article you suggest in draft-space; on acceptance it would then replace the redirect. Elemimele (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you both for the helpful clarification. I agree that a broader article would need substantial restructuring and wider discussion at WT:Chemistry#Potpourri of uses of radical pair. My main point was only that the sources support a standalone article in principle. If an interim redirect is the consensus, drafting a properly scoped replacement seems reasonable. Bifmark (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. (Note that I was the creator of the article.) As mentioned in the previous note, the radical-pair mechanism is not strictly limited to the cryptochrome, nor to avian magnetoreception. The source gives a good overview of multiple biological mechanisms where the radical-pair mechanism appears (including, but not limited to, avian magnetoreception). I also disagree that the article is overly focused on avian magnetoreception per WP:TNT; aside from the image, the entire "Mechanism" section is context-independent and applies to nearly all appliations of the radical-pair mechanism. I believe that the article is better served by adding additional content to show its wide range of uses, and I will certainly use the sources Bifmark provided to do so. DeemDeem52 (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Treams

Treams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to T-matrix method#Software: Fails WP:GNG; the independent sources (not written by Rockstuhl, who developed the software) that mention treams that I could access do not contain significant coverage of the software; they only briefly cite it or just note that it was used in their experiments. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Physics and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related AfD discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Overall, I'm not completely sure, if it should stay here or be redirected. I wouldn’t probably mind moving the article to the T-matrix page, while keeping the detailed description of its capabilities, since for users these may be more important than the method itself. Posolubile (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Connection (affine bundle)

Connection (affine bundle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to Affine bundle because the article is a long-standing stub with a single source and the subject is likely not notable enough to merit its own article. However, there are complications. I originally set this article for WP:PROD because it is a stub written almost entirely by a single editor in 2013, and it appears to be copied near-verbatim from a single source from around the same time, itself seemingly written by the editor (though there is no reason to doubt its legitimacy). Thus there are elements of WP:SELFCITE and WP:NOR if not WP:PLAG. Nonetheless, it probably should have a place somewhere on Wikipedia because it is cited by a number of other articles, mainly those on physical theories using this mathematical construction. (Many of those articles were also largely written by the same editor and cite his work, so may have similar issues, but they generally have additional independent sources.) Adkbeckett (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Physics. Adkbeckett (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  Unless @jraimbau or anyone else objects, I will perform the merge to Affine bundle in the next few days, probably Monday. I will also try to deal with some of the issues raised, including adding something about principal connections on an affine frame bundle. Adkbeckett (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure of the etiquette here, but since the discussion has been reopened, I'll postpone performing the merge until the discussion closes. Adkbeckett (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• Comment i think Connection (principal bundle) would make a slightly better target. In any case; i am all in favour of Merging given the state of the article. jraimbau (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  I suggested Affine bundle as the target of the merge since, as currently written, the article does not use the language of principal bundles (despite the lead mentioning it, the body only mentions the link via affine frames as an aside; no doubt this should be expanded and further emphasised in any case), and the articles linking to it largely use similar terminology and notation as the current article, although some e.g. Affine gauge theory also talk about the affine frame bundle perspective in a bit more detail. Adkbeckett (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 06:47, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Department of Physics (University of Texas at Austin)

Department of Physics (University of Texas at Austin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Page on a physics department which does not include any evidence of WP:SIGCOV of the department itself, or a pass of WP:NSCHOOL. The only ref with some content is #3, but that is largely a republish of details in a book the department published about itself. Via WP:NOT INHERITED the obvious notability of some of its current and prior faculty does not make the department itself notable. I also do not see any obvious SIGCOV in Google, just other refs to their self-published history. While I do wonder whether we need an RfC to reconsider NSCHOOL, unless there is a change this belongs as a redirect. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Schools, Physics, and Texas. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Please see Category:Physics departments in the United States. Either all universities are allowed to have this on Wikipedia, or none should. No need to question on how a university department came into being — Maile (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2026 (UTC).

  @Maile66 please check WP:NSCHOOL, this and other departments fall under WP:ORG:

  All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page) or the general notability guideline.

  A quick check suggests that many of the 9 in that category will not pass WP:42 based upon the content in their current pages. Frequently pages on university departments are deleted at AfD. Either we follow the current policy, or decide to ignore it. In the latter case every department in every R1, R2, RCU, D/PU university in the world would merit a page.

  You can check the notability talk archives. From what I see no exception has yet been made. While I sympathize with some form of academic exception, it would need to pass an RfC first. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't follow this argument. Some physics departments are more famous, accomplished, prestigious, etc., than others. Some will be written about more than others. The physics departments of, e.g., MIT and Caltech might merit articles when those of other schools—even good schools, just known for other things besides physics—don't. We're building an encyclopedia, not a directory of universities. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't follow it either. keep as is.The department itself was established in 1884 and so noted on its Wikipedia page. It's well sourced. There is a Notable Faculty section. I see no reason to redirect it. — Maile (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I was saying that I don't follow the argument that you made in your !vote of 00:48, 16 September 2026. Something might have screwed up the auto-indentation. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: Per Maile. Knitsozark (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect First of all, the "either every department or none" argument carries no water. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. We can have an article about a particular physics department if enough has been written about that department as an entity in reliable, independent sources and if it makes better organizational sense to cover that department in a separate page rather than as part of a larger whole, like the university to which it belongs. UT Austin has a decent shot at that, as far as schools go, but I just don't see the case. Second, a department can't inherit wiki-notability from having famous members. We already have Category:University of Texas at Austin faculty. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 15:50, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect: clearly fails WP:NSCHOOL (and by extension WP:GNG) by lacking independent sigcov. The argument that we need to somehow keep or delete all physics department has never had any established concensus, while we have to clearly established WP:NOTDIRECTORY advising the contrary.

LkL-70547 (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep There should be coverage available for a long established department, more than 100 years. There seems to be sufficient coverage in the article already. scope_creep^Talk 07:20, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Absent a topic-wide notability guideline for academic departments, we need to evaluate notability on the specifics, not the generalities: does this department meet our notability criteria?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:50, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. If this is kept, it would be preferably to move the page to University of Texas at Austin Department of Physics as a more natural title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - high-ranking faculty, 100 years old, and large size. "Everything is bigger in Texas," they say. No opinion on any of the others. Bearian (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2026 (UTC)