Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(−1)F

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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 19:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(−1)F

[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)

Doesn't seem to need an article to explain, could be placed in another article, and serve the same function. BJackJS talk 17:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and open a merge proposal There seems to be no cause for a deletion discussion here - what you need is expert input from people who know the area, as to whether this should be merged into an existing article; open a standard merge proposal first (or perform the merge yourself and see if it sticks). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, procedural keep, that is. I agree with the nom and Elmidae that this could be usefully merged, but AfD is not for cleanup and in particular it is not the place to discuss merges. Better would be to open a merge discussion on the talk page. See WP:MERGE for instructions on how to do so. One promising merge target would be Supersymmetry as a quantum group, in which there is a lot of overlap with this article. Another target would be the section Parity_(physics)#Fixing_the_global_symmetries. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not needing its own article is not a reason to request deletion, that is a reason to open a merge discussion. If, on the other hand, you wish to argue it is not notable, please say so. A merger discussion seems appropriate in this case, but there is not a clear target, so that will need to be discussed elsewhere. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:27, 24 October 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.