Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consequences of special relativity

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 redirect to Special relativity#Consequences until such time as sufficient reliable sources can be found and unitlized for it to stand on its own per WP:V and WP:N. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Consequences of special relativity

Consequences of special relativity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Propose to delete this unreferenced article. As a lead it contains a copy of Special relativity#Consequences, and it has an entirely unencyclopedic unsourced wp:ORish section. Was proposed to be deleted on talk page a few times. Nobody objected. - DVdm (talk) 11:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Next time try Proposed deletion instead of directly bringing it to Articles for deletion.  --Lambiam 17:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I had considered that, but the latter suggests that the former should be "used to suggest deletions that no editor would contest," so, as I expected some resistance from the author who created the unsourced section, I came here. - DVdm (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• delete per nom. Looking at I can see nothing that's not covered well in special relativity, and from the talk page merging/deleting it has come up before but not been acted on. Compared to that well visited and well maintained article there's no point keeping this. Checking the history this seems to be the point where an anon IP copied and pasted most of the article from special relativity. Without that duplication there's nothing worth keeping.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• comment see also this discussion related to the above change which mentions this article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• note I just noticed that this AfD was incomplete, missing its header and not added to the log for the day. I've corrected both problems, which maybe explains why no other editors have participated in the discussion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

---

• Redirect to Special relativity#Consequences - without sources, there is nothing to distinguish this from original research. Assuredly though, I would say keep following a cited rewrite. Merry Christmas folks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• (Changed from an accidental delete). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to Special relativity#Consequences.  --Lambiam 17:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• Another abuse of "original research" at AFD, I see — this time to mean "the article lacks source citations". Anyone who knows xyr physics should know that this isn't original research, by any stretch of the imagination. (As David Hilbert once remarked, this is mathematics that "any schoolboy in Göttingen" could understand.) Original research physics in Wikipedia would be crank physics, that hasn't been acknowledged by people other than its creators/proposers, or not-yet-properly-published new physics that has yet to be reviewed. This, by contrast, is the standard Pythagorean derivation of the Lorentz coefficient γ, as can be found in a multitude of textbooks and popular science books on the subject. Its presentation here is better than the one at Lorentz factor#Derivation, ironically, and an order of magnitude more accessible than what is at Lorentz transformations. It is, however, not a consequence of special relativity; but, rather, an integral part of the mathematics of special relativity.

  I don't know what Sabejias (talk · contribs) was planning when xe started this article. Certainly there's ample scope for an article on this, given the number of textbooks that have a "consequences" section for special relativity, as well as Einstein's own mention of strange consequences. But as it currently stands, this is a breakout sub-article of Special relativity#Consequences that doesn't expand upon the summary in the super-article, and goes into none of the detail that such books do.

  DVdm, instead of waiting for two years, you could have just redirected this yourself back in 2010. Uncle G (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think we can safely redirect to Special relativity#Consequences. I would do it, but there this warning "Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled" on the page, so I won't touch it. I never did a redirect before, so I don't now what will happen with the associated talk page and with this discussion. Should it be somehow closed or archived? Cheers all and thanks for commenting. - DVdm (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

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.