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. Consensus is 'delete'. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Krausser–Samwer–Zaccone equation

Krausser–Samwer–Zaccone equation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Fails the notability criterion. A notability tag had been added in the end of July [1], and was removed in the middle of August [2] by an editor who added another paper of the same authors (together with one more coauthor). That's not enough to establish notability. More worryingly, this new reference was a reply to a comment claiming that the equation in question is incorrect [3].

Moreover, the article content consists only of the equation: it is also present in Viscosity, which seems to me the correct place to mention this equation, if at all.

Another problem is that there's no reliable sourcing naming the equation as "Krausser–Samwer–Zaccone equation". This name seems to be solely the creation of User:Michal Borkovec and User:Ben Mandelson, who added it all over Wikipedia, including Viscosity, Viscous liquid, Liquid metal, Fragility, and Alessio Zaccone. This makes me suspect WP:COI, WP:PROMOTION, and WP:SOCK. Tercer ( talk) 09:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep: The equation has been published in a notable scientific journal ( Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, PNAS) and has received many citations since 2015. Also it has been used by different authors in the citing papers. Furthermore, this is currently the only equation of viscosity which is able to relate viscosity to intermolecular/interatomic interaction parameters and microstructure, differently from previous approaches (e.g. Vogel-Fulcher-Tammann equation) which are just empirical relations. If other such equations exist, they should be named here in this discussion. It is not true that this name is solely the creation of User:Michal Borkovec and User:Ben Mandelson, since other editors participated in the creation/editing process. The fact that some users added it in other pages does not represent a reason to call for its deletion. Those users made edits and contributions to a number of very different Wikipedia pages. Finally, User:Tercer should declare their competence in the area of liquid state theory and classical condensed matter physics, if any. —Preceding undated comment added 10:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

It is very easy to verify that the name in Wikipedia is solely the creation of User:Michal Borkovec and User:Ben Mandelson. In Viscosity, it was added by Ben Mandelson [4]. In Viscous liquid, it was added by Ben Mandelson and Michal Borkovec [5]. In Liquid metal, it was added by Ben Mandelson [6]. In Fragility, it was added by Ben Mandelson and Michal Borkovec [7]. In Alessio Zaccone, it was added by Michal Borkovec at page creation. In Krausser–Samwer–Zaccone equation itself, also by Michal Borkovec at page creation. Editors here have no business in naming equations, they should report the name used in reliable sources.

The equation has indeed been published in a serious journal and cited many times, 55 according to Google Scholar [8]. This is enough to include the equation in Viscosity, but not enough for a standalone article. For that we need coverage in the lay media, not in journal articles only. Heck, I have myself several papers with more than 55 citations, I'm not going to create Wikipedia articles about them!

Please answer if you are the same person editing under the accounts of User:Michal Borkovec, User:Ben Mandelson, and User:Ronny Lifshitz. Note that this is forbidden by Wikipedia policy. Tercer ( talk) 10:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I agree that not all articles with 55 citations should be featured in Wikipedia! I argue, however, that this 2015 result would deserve a page on its own for the reasons mentioned above. This is a new equation and compared to previous approaches (e.g. the Vogel-Fulcher-Tammann equation) it stands out as a microscopic approach. If you know of any other such approaches, they would also deserve a page on Wikipedia, but I don't think there are any available in the scientific literature.

Btw, the same arguments for deletion brought up by User:Tercer should then apply also to the article Vogel-Fulcher-Tammann equation, which was created by User:Ben Mandelson. The Vogel-Fulcher-Tammann equation was developed in the 1920s. Is User:Tercer implying that User:Ben Mandelson is trying to do self-promotion for a result that was proposed in the 1920s? Obviously not, User:Ben Mandelson is simply an expert who is (without any reward) enriching Wikipedia with competent contributions based solely on the published peer-reviewed scientific literature. Of course, compared to the Krausser-Samwer-Zaccone equation, the Vogel-Fulcher-Tammann equation has been used much more, but that's obvious because it was developed 100 years ago whereas the Krausser-Samwer-Zaccone equation was developed in 2015. Should then only results that are 100 years old be worth of a Wikipedia article? I leave the answer to the readers of this discussion thread...

I also think that my own papers are the best thing since sliced bread. That's not the question. The question is whether there are reliable sources stating that this result is the best thing since sliced bread. The Vogel-Fulcher-Tammann equation is a good comparison: a Google search of "Vogel-Fulcher-Tammann equation" gives me immediately several reliable sources stating that the equation is important, and that it is in fact named so. A Google search of "Krausser–Samwer–Zaccone equation", on the other hand, doesn't give me any result outside Wikipedia, which is further evidence that this name is in fact solely created by you. Tercer ( talk) 12:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete This equation has no coverage in GScholar or GBooks under this name, so the title is a neologism. Whatever it is called, there are no independent secondary sources discussing this model/equation in depth, so there are no reliable sources in the Wikipedia sense WP:RS and the topic fails notability criteria per WP:GNG. Because the title has no support in the literature, even a redirect to the viscosity section is unwarranted. Hence, delete. When the equation gets in depth discussions in multiple secondary sources like published review articles or books, written by authors independent of the creators, then an article could be considered. --{{u| Mark viking}} { Talk} 16:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per the nomination and Mark viking. I looked into this page shortly after it was created and decided that it was pushing a neologism for a topic that didn't have enough coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. At the time, I didn't have the energy to start an AfD (and the matter did not seem very pressing), but now that somebody else has, I'll chime in with my opinion. Age is a red herring; what matters is coverage in secondary and tertiary sources establishing that the topic is significant and that the scientific community has given it a standardized name. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete for now. Some citations but not yet a standardised name. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC). reply
• Delete. Neologism. Expunge the name from other articles as well.-- Srleffler ( talk) 02:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 02:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - We can't continue to have a page for a neologism coined here on Wikipedia. I think the content might be rescuable, but I note that one of the highest cited papers citing the PNAS article is a Nature article - https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13733 - that, like the article Tercer pointed out, doesn't seem too impressed by the approach. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete: fails WP:NEO. I agree with Chalst; considering the citations, contents of the research and subsequent academic coverage may be included on relevant articles within the limits of WP:UNDUE. Myxomatosis57 ( talk) 09:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Wikipedia is not the name for WP:OR, even for naming things. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 19:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete or draftify - while potentially important, and fascinating to this science teacher, this is still original research, and it would need to be cited in a textbook or professional development seminar, before we would publish it here. Sorry, but it's still too soon. Bearian ( talk) 20:22, 9 September 2020 (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.