Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Einstein's Special Theory 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 was Boldly redirected to Special relativity. Non-admin closure, you have the right to leave nasty comments on my talk page if this was a bad idea. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Einstein&

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is redundant with the articles Special Relativity and Introduction to Special Relativity, and is of much poorer quality than the articles that already cover this topic. Since the information is uncited and probably already covered by the appropriate articles, there is probably nothing to salvage from it either. The comments of the author indicate that this article was adapted from a PowerPoint presentation that he developed. Given that and the voice and organization of the article, it seems to be intended as an introductory lesson on Special Relativity rather than an encyclopedia entry, which may make it more suitable for Wikiversity. Nimrand 18:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And you are proposing it for deletion, why? Because it's included in other articles?  Then list the other articles, you know, Special Theory Of Relativity, or whatever.  Please clarify why you are posting it for deletion.  Cleanup and "no attention since January" are not reasons for deletion, so just clarify why it should be deleted so others can comment.  Thanks.  KP Botany 19:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, the article is redundant. The article's topic is special relativity, for which there is already a much higher quality article named Special_Relativity.  This article is also redundant as being an introduction to special relativity, as there is an article for that as well: Introduction to special relativity.  Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be much to salvage from the article, as its information is completely uncited and is probably already covered in one or more other articles anyway.Nimrand 21:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent, but you didn't say this or mention the other articles in your nomination, which would have made absolutely clear what you are trying to do here. I hope folks who have already voted will read this post of yours and understand, but my suggestion is that you succinctly reword it to include this information, and, in the future, be straight-forward about nominations, with links to the proper articles.  KP Botany 21:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Special relativity. A cursory glance indicates there isn't anything that isn't there already that's worth bringing along, but I could be wrong. - Richfife 19:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Would simply pasting it to the Special relativity talk page suffice? Note that there is an Introduction to special relativity article, if that was the original intent of this article.  KP Botany 20:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup This is a difficult article for anyone other than a physicist to edit. The math, the theories, etc. are quite confusing. But to delete the article is a poor decision. It fails, however to support its claims with reliable sources. Someone with knowledge of the field could probably bring it along. Cut and paste probably produces some problems with maintaining GFDL licensing and should be avoided if possible.  Jody B   talk 20:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect as Richfife had said. --Jacques Pirat Talk 21:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per Nimrand's second comment above. There is nothing in the article that needs redirected or added to Special relativity (which needs a bit of work in the introduction).  The article is poorly written and difficult to understand so should not be considered an introduction to a topic that can be readily understood if explained clearly.  KP Botany 21:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm okay with making this page a redirect. However, is "Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity" an accurate name?  I've always heard it as "Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity."
 * Redirect it seems like part of the intent of this article is to discuss the history and motivation of Einstein's development of the subject. There is value in such an article, but this one doesn't adequately serve the purpose. JJL 21:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It's difficult to see this, but if this is the case, renaming might be more appropriate than redirecting. We don't have an article on this historical background of the development of Einstein's theories?  It's an incredibly fascinating story that covers a solid 50 interesting years in the development of theoretical physics, add the quest for the math and it's a story that certainly must be written somewhere on Wikipedia.  Thanks for looking at this, JJL.  KP Botany 21:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Special Relativity. Introduction to Special Relativity is a much better article --Aim Here 00:09, 1 July 2007 (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.