Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A 5 minutes explanation of 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 of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 01:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

A 5 minutes explanation of Relativity
Delete This article was added by an anon with IP address 212.21.138.161 which is registered in Bulgaria, and cites a cranky web page in Bulgaria. The article evidently concerns the authors cranky personal views; certainly there is no "time relativity" known in physics. Hence this article violates the verifiability and NOR rules, at the very least. CH (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The article classifies itself as New Insight in Physics. Delete per WP:NOR. --Pjacobi 16:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: See also http://www.pirelliaward.com/einstein.html and http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/. Thanks/wangi 16:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand--- are you saying that you guess that Marinchev is hoping to win the Pirelli award with this article? Not bloody likely, I should think. ---CH  (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's exactly it, and why I didn't vote - I do not fully understand the topic; however a quick search for "5 minutes explanation of Relativity" does bring up stuff that, to the untrained eye, certainly does look connected. I guess I was just say it's not 100% original research... wangi 16:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete "new insight", uses talk pages as a reference, and anything worthwhile could be on another page anyway. JPD (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Kgf0 16:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)  Edit:  If an article similar to this (and better written) belongs anywhere, it's simple:Relativity which sorely needs work anyway. --Kgf0 23:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It makes the baby Einstein cry. Shimgray | talk | 17:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. As an aside: the essay does not even deliver what it promises. It concludes by saying "Is a 5 minutes explanation of Relativity possible? Yes, it is, if we use the time relativity." But "the time relativity" is never defined or explained. As nearly as I can tell, this is an introduction to a 5-minute explanation that is never actually delivered. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was just gonna replace this with a redirect, but this works too. -- SCZenz 21:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. I applaud the effort at an easy to understand introduction to relativity. This might qualify as a "trampoline" article, designed to introduce novices to advanced concepts, similar to Special relativity for beginners.  See WikiProject General Audience.  As such, any flaws should be fixed and the article improved upon, rather than deleted.  As for the time relativity line at the end, I believe that was meant as a joke.  It can certainly be taken out.  As for whether it was written by an anonymous I/P from Sophia, Bulgaria, I don't see how that disqualifies a contribution.  As far as I know, Wikipedia has no policy excluding contibutions from certain locations or from anonymous contributors.  If they are referencing themself, those refs should be taken out.  In short, we may just be dealing with a newbie who doesn't know the rules, so let's show a little patience, please. StuRat 22:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Stu, please keep your shirt on. The location information was simply to support my presumption that the anonymous edits were made by Marinchev.  That is relevant because I was invoking WP:NOR in nominating the article for deletion.  I am about to add another comment further down which I hope you will take to heart.---CH  (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If we assume that the last line is a joke, I still have to say I don't see the article as useful. It similar to stating Euclid's axioms and calling it a "5 minute explanation of geometry." Unless you happen to be a Euclid&mdash;or an Einstein&mdash;it doesn't really "explain" anything. So, yes, I applaud the effort, but I reject the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's the issue, there's not much here we can use. So we have an article idea that might be fine, with content that has to be wholly rewritten and a title that has to be changed.  Why not just delete it and let someone write a new one at the right place if someone wants to? -- SCZenz 23:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose it all depends on if we have someone willing to give the article the TLC it needs to get it up to specs. StuRat 00:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Stu, about WikiProject General Audience, I am certainly one of those who has been raising the technical bar with my own contributions to the Wikipedia, but I don't disagree with the goals of that project unless your goals statment means "every article in Wikipedia should remain accessible in its entirety to a general audience". Actually, even then I might not disagree, since I am beginning to think that there may be case for Wikimedia forking the Wikipedia into a populist general audience encyclopedia which anyone can edit, as in the current Wikipedia model, and a controlled content scholarly/scientific encyclopedia which is much less up-to-the-minute but much more reliable,  as in the Britannica model.  However, in the short term, statistics seem to show that many of the most active and knowledgeable editors of the Wikipedia are involved in creating articles on highly technical topics, including physics topics, and in such articles, I advocate (following accepted encyclopedic practice) that the articles should begin with a nontechnical summary accessible to a general audience, and subsequently introduce technical material as needed, if possible with monotonically increasingly technical demands, after the Baez model of exposition.
 * In any case, while it might be beneficial to discuss such policy issues elsewhere (maybe on my talk page?), in the case at hand, the key point about why this particular article has been nominated for deletion was succinctly expressed by SCZenz: there's not much here we can use. Don't forget one of Einstein's own favorite sayings: a (theory, explanation) should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.  What we have in this article is something so simplified it doesn't even make sense, not just to a physicist but even to a general audience member.  Bearing this in mind, I hope you will reread the article and change your vote.---CH  (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I would say the Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject General Audience page would be the proper place for such a discussion, but since I'm not sure you're watchiing it, I will respond here. I would characterize the goal of the project as "every article in Wikipedia should be accessible in its entirety to a general audience, inasmuch as it is possible to do so without deleteing technical content.  Introductions to articles which the general audience is likely to encounter should be accessible to a general audience, even if movement of technical content from the intro to the body is required." StuRat 17:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I won't be changing my vote, as I believe such an article is needed, although admitedly with a major rewrite. My vote for deletion is not required, however, as I bow to the will of the majority.  In other words, if the article is deleted, I won't revert it, not because I agree with the action, but because I respect the consensus. StuRat 17:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It goes without saying that we all respect consensus, and I think more generally-accesible introductions are good. (Even my physics writing is designed to be generally readable.)  I'm personally just confused about why this article should be kept; as I said above, nothing about it is salvagable.  -- SCZenz 17:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The concept is salvagable. That is, there should be an introductory article on relativity. The Special relativity for beginners article is decent, but lacks some of the historical references, such as to Newton and Galileo, which have been added to the new article.  I would support a merge with Special relativity for beginners, but that's quite different. StuRat 21:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason why that information cannot simply be added to Theory of relativity, which is linked to from the Relativity dab page, and which in turn links to Special Relativity and General Relativity? I.e., put the general concept and historical information that covers the topic as a whole at "Theory of," and start getting down and dirty in the more specific articles (while, naturally, still providing the General Audiences versions in the introductions).  I continue to maintain that any article as grotesquely simplified as this article wants to be (and isn't) belongs at simple:Relativity, as noted in the edit to my delete vote above. --Kgf0 22:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think simple is the right place for this stuff, because it's a site for simple language, not necessarily simple ideas. (Actually it's pretty difficult to figure out what it's for, but I've already voted with my feet by not writing there.)  However, I still don't understand your stance, StuRat; nobody's attacking the concept of a simple introduction, nobody's voting against the concept of a simple introduction, and deleting this article isn't getting rid of the concept of a simple introduction. Hell, I might work on a simple introduction to GR myself, if you like. -- SCZenz 02:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not just advocating a general audience intro, but an entire general audience article, in cases like this with a seemingly complex topic which has a name recognizable by the general public. With that said, I think some of the content, like the Galileo and Newton references, should be merged into Special relativity for beginners.  Then this article can be deleted. StuRat 03:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete more or less as per nom. I see nothing redeeming in this page.  It is effectively a first draft on a subject which has several relevant and well-developed pages already (i.e.: special relativity, special relativity for beginners, and general relativity).  It makes little sense to start over again, especially given how primitive and difficult to comprehend this article is. --EMS | Talk 02:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Useless given existing pages, and original research as well Salsb 12:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * userfy--MarSch 17:27, 2 November 2005 (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.