Deletion of Fourier expansion electromagnetic field

Comment: or redirect to Quantum Field Theory or to Canonical quantization. I think these articles are much better developed than either Fourier expansion electromagnetic field or Quantization of the electromagnetic field. They also cover much the same material but at a better level. I'd also disagree with TStein about . I think that item 6 there applies quite closely to these articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK)

Comment: It is a notable when combined with Quantization of the electromagnetic field. Perhaps it needs to be moved to a more notable name or merged with that article, but the material is useful and as appropriate to WP as many other esoteric subjects. I don't think that  applies as that policy is currently written. There the main criterion seems to be whether or not it is there to 'instruct' or 'inform'. I believe that the latter is the case here. '''* Edit''' (10:21, 31 March 2011) After looking at the material with fresh eyes and after viewing the other comments, I agree that it does violate  (see my comments below). I still don't think that the article violates it to the extent that the solution should be deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK||WP:NOTTEXTBOOK)

Comment: there's nothing particularly notable about the Fourier expansion of EM fields. Seems like a textbook-case of , if you'll pardon the pun. From a quick (30 seconds glance), the maths are right and could probably all be referenced, but as Dino said, that does not warrant its own article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK)

Comment: The formulas are notable some sense and probably easy to give precise references for.  It seems like a lot of it is almost too trivial, though, and so I do worry about .  Anyone capable of reading the article is probably just as capable of coming up with these formulas on their own with a little effort.  Still, I don't really see that as a compelling reason to delete it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK)

Comment: Not an encyclopedic topic.  etc
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK)