Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Einstein–Oppenheimer relationship


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. As the nominator has unofficially withdrawn their nomination given the massive changes that have happened to the article since its nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Einstein–Oppenheimer relationship

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

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)
 * PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)}}
 * as pointed out below, they compare them, but don't discuss the human relationship, which is the title, so withdraw this PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:37, 3 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) Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Ldm1954 please move your opinion about draftifying up under your nomination statement so that editors won't think it's a comment by a new editor. Just pondering, would any of the article's problems be changed by moving it to a different title? It seems like some objections are that the sources/content don't support what is implied by the article title. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 9 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)
 * Update to state that I still believe the article should be kept, and that we can change the title if the concern is the word "relationship". For example, Comparisons between Einstein and Oppenheimer etc. — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 17:22, 10 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:
 * 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 &mdash; the first source &mdash; 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)
 * That's a more fair point but TBF, the AfD rationale was basically "it's a stub" so that is typically what is gone to refute... PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Deletion policy covers project:no original research too, and your claim that there are "numerous high quality sources in the page that discuss the relationship between these two people in depth" is refuted by Matthew Shindell, book reviewing the very one of said sources that this article mainly relies upon. Uncle G (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah looking at the sources present again they seem to more just drawing lines between the two, not anything significant on the relationship they had (which is the title). My bad mate. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment Some context needed here for new readers/editors. The original article was created on February 29th by Rim sim, here. It was not marked as a page that was in the process of being edited, which would have been good. As part of routine New Page review I marked it with an AfD. What has happened since is that Rim sim has made massive changes, it has gone from 3915 Bytes to 12,861. Unfortunately many of the comments above are for different stages of the revisions, so comparison is difficult to impossible. Since major changes are still being made I am not sure to what extent this discussion is currently useful. I will suggest either postponing or cancelling it until we have a more stable version. For certain there are still going to be issues; is Wikipedia the place for comparison articles on two very notable scientists who both have large pages? Ldm1954 (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the understanding. There are numerous articles on the web about the relationship between Einstein and Oppenheimer, many of them are facts mixed with fiction. Even the chatbots are coming up with different tales. This article is an attempt to set the record straight—by using the most high quality sources, as such a more stable version of this article is still a work in progress. I will be off till the end of this month, so hopefully it would be better, as per your suggestion, to either postpone or cancel this current discussion. Rim sim (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think its surprising that chatbots are coming up with different tales. The training data for some of them probably includes descriptions of a couple of scenes from Oppenheimer, which, please remember, is a fictionalized account, and probably also accounts for some of the numerous articles on the web. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2024 (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.