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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Relativistic Trolley Paradox

[edit]

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

Entirely based on a recent primary source (written by the author himself (Oleg V. Matvejev, Olgmtv (talk · contribs) and, based on ISP location likely 90.140.224.89 (talk · contribs)), no secondary sources can be found DVdm (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. DVdm (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 0 cites on GScholar, probably because it was just published (but that is an argument against keeping). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously does not pass WP:GNG.T R 14:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One primary source so does not pass our notability guidelines. DeVerm (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No comment except to say that any article that made AJP needs to be included in Wikimedia. I have saved a copy on Wikiversity, attributed to User:Olgmtv.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I don't know how Wikiversity works, but that looks both an overlarge ambition and a copyright infringement magnet. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, about the copyvio : Wikiversity has the same rules as Wikipedia. If this article is a copyvio it cannot appear on Wikiversity. Second, about the "overlarge ambition": I'm not sure what you meant, but my guess is that I mislead you with the phrase "any article that made AJP needs to be on Wikiversity". I should have referred to "any article notable enough for AJP..." Also, I believe that an open source wikisister that hosts a number of refereed journals can and will eventually grow to become larger than AJP. At the moment, that sister happens to be Wikiversity, but some people want to move the operation to a different wiki. See v:Wikiversity_Journal_User_Group.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self-collapsing of off-topic comment, Wikiversity policies are not relevant to what happens inside WP. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could have guessed the rules about the copyvio, my point was just that a systematic policy of pulling AJP content sounds dangerous. It is inevitable that someone will do a mistake at some point. I do not see how "any article notable enough for AJP..." is different, it means that eventually all content from AJP should be pulled to Wikiversity. I do appreciate that AJP is a respectable journal so it does not publish cranks, but by Wikipedia standards a single article (even in Science or Nature) is not enough to establish notability: you need third-party discussion, refs, etc. Wikiversity probably has a different philosophy on that point but surely some form of WP:IINFO and WP:GNG exist: it cannot be "everything every researcher ever published in a serious peer-reviewed paper is fit for us", can it?

Self-collapsing of off-topic comment, Wikiversity policies are not relevant to what happens inside WP. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could have guessed the rules about the copyvio, my point was just that a systematic policy of pulling AJP content sounds dangerous. It is inevitable that someone will do a mistake at some point. I do not see how "any article notable enough for AJP..." is different, it means that eventually all content from AJP should be pulled to Wikiversity. I do appreciate that AJP is a respectable journal so it does not publish cranks, but by Wikipedia standards a single article (even in Science or Nature) is not enough to establish notability: you need third-party discussion, refs, etc. Wikiversity probably has a different philosophy on that point but surely some form of WP:IINFO and WP:GNG exist: it cannot be "everything every researcher ever published in a serious peer-reviewed paper is fit for us", can it?

Please note that paradox is very spectacular itself, despite it is a brand-new one. Sure, I would like to make it available to the readers. Anyone studying SR will truly enjoy considering this task. It includes several related topics including shape of a rolling relativistic wheel. Olgmtv (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but see WP:NOTESSAY: "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought." - DVdm (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Very spectacular"? I do not see how this is more than a complex version of the ladder paradox. But well, I am not a reviewer at AJP. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This needs to be covered in multiple reliable sources. As it stands now, it is original research, not what different sources are saying about this topic. I agree that AJP is a reputable journal, so this may turn out to be a case of showing up on Wikipedia too soon.---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, DVdm's comment is on point with WP:NOTESSAY ----Steve Quinn (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2016 (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.