Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrokinematics theorem

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. ✗plicit 23:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Electrokinematics theorem

[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)

No evidence of notability - seems to have been created by the author or an associate. Entirely sourced from primary sources, not widely cited. PianoDan (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's more literature here than there is for cut-insertion theorem, but not by enough to make a difference. I can't make a case that this is a meaningfully separate topic from Shockley–Ramo theorem; discussing the more obscure generalizations of a theorem in the article on that theorem keeps material from getting too fragmented, and this isn't even the only way that the Shockley–Ramo theorem has been generalized [1]. Both candidate titles ("electrokinemtics theorem" and "Ramo–Shockley–Pellegrini theorem") are too obscure to serve as helpful redirects, and the existing text is too unclearly written to be worth preserving by even a selective merge. XOR'easter (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per this rationale. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2021 (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.