Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Einstein–Oppenheimer relationship

Einstein–Oppenheimer relationship

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Einstein–Oppenheimer relationship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This article has no significant content. It states that both Einstein and Oppenheimer were physicists, and worked at Princeton. However, this is just trivial information. Much more is needed IMHO Ldm1954 (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Delete -- This is a string of random facts about Einstein interleaved with an unconnected string of random facts about Oppenheimer. The sources don't connect the facts. As pure a case of WP:SYN as I've ever seen. The synthesis is followed by some comments each made about the other, which doesn't constitute a relationship. This reads like a high school "compare and contrast" essay. Central and Adams (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • The article is a WP:STUB which is being expanded gradually, as such it may not be in an appealing state for all. Hope the readers will be patient. Rim sim (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
    • You're right, I'm sorry. Central and Adams (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. To my awareness, the notability of an article is not dependent on the current state of the page. It's gradually being expanded, and there are numerous high quality sources in the page that discuss the relationship between these two people in depth. So, it seems fine to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keep -- Per PARAKANYAA. Central and Adams (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keep WP:HEY. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 20:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Draftified. If this is a stub that is being improved then it should be in draft space until it is ready and can claim notability. Even with the latest changes it is not close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Which I've reverted. Wait for the AfD to end. Queen of Hearts talk
    she/they
    stalk 23:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • No, the sources already in the article are sufficient to meet GNG so there's no reason at all to put it into draft space. Notability is determined by the quality of existing sources, not the state of the article per WP:ARTN. Central and Adams (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • No? The sources show notability. Stubs are fine in mainspace provided they show notability and don't have dire BLP concerns or something that's a legal issue like that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Do they show it, though? Not upon reading. I've read a couple. Oppenheimer's speech on Einstein is well documented; but there's no symmetry here, and the speech isn't really a relationship, or even about a relationship between the twain. If one reads the analyses of the speech the secondary sources state that it is as much Oppenheimer addressing in general how physics is done as it is addressing Einstein. The second source here in front of you is actually mis-cited, for example, and is in fact:
  • Sherwin, Martin (1979). "Oppenheimer on Einstein". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 35 (3): 36–39. doi:10.1080/00963402.1979.11458597.
• Oppenheimer's speech is named "On Einstein" in the first paragraph of the article, and dated 1965. This 1979 article is by Sherwin not by Oppenheimer, and an editorial note from the Bulletin on page 37, just above where Oppenheimer's speech is quoted in Sherwin's article, notes that Sherwin's biography of Oppenheimer was "forthcoming" (American Prometheus finally appeared over 2 decades later, amusingly.) and states that "the remarks that follow shed, perhaps, more light on Oppenheimer than on the object of his analysis".

  Then on to the third source. It's actually a double book review of a book on Einstein by Aant Elzinga and the first source, and the only way that Matthew Shindell connects Oppenheimer to Einstein in the entire review is via the title of Schweber's book. There's even a footnote by Shindell that xe has described Schweber's book as a "tandem" biography and has "resist[ed] using the word comparative here because Schweber insists that his methodology is not comparative". In other words: Schweber — the first source — isn't relating Einstein to Oppenheimer either. Per the third source if one actually reads it.

  I think that people in this discussion should pay more attention to what the sources cited actually support, rather than merely looking at the word "and" in their titles and thinking on no more than that basis that they must therefore support the article's thesis.

  Uncle G (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)