Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginsberg's theorem


 * 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. Ugh, having just closed two AfDs as No Consensus I hate to make it three, but there are at least four different suggestions here along with a couple of Keep votes of the ITSNOTABLE type. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ginsberg&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Topic not notable, largely OR AUN4 (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as notable and sourced humorous adage. --Kkmurray (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - there are a couple of reliable sources for it. That's sufficient for notability. Joja  lozzo  03:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – Per reliable sources already in the article that establish notability of the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. I'm not sure how it looked to the nominator, but it looks notable and well-sourced now. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – The presence of reliable sources within articles is not a valid argument for article deletion. Rather, Wikipedia: Articles for deletion, Section D, “Sourcing Search”, #3 states - “In the event you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination.” Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Would the proponents of retention please point to specific significant, reliable sources that establish notability of this theorem? The three sources in the article contain only trivial mentions of the theorem, as articulated below in my vote. Goodvac (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Ginsberg's theorem fails WP:GNG because of the lack of significant, reliable sources:
 * The Joy of Physics has only snippet view on Google Books, so I will quote the passage that mentions Ginbserg's theorem (snippet, snippet):"The third law of thermodynamics was formulated by Walther Nemst. It is impossible to use any finite process to cool a body to absolute zero. Beat poet Allen Ginsberg paraphrased the three laws of thermodynamics as First law: 'You can't win.' Second law: 'You can't break even.' Third law: 'You can't quit.' Meanwhile, back to heat energy. There are several ways for heat energy to be transferred from one body to another. (my bolding)" Ginsberg's theorem is tangential to the main discussion of the laws of thermodynamics. The author does not discuss the theorem at all; he merely quotes it.
 * Murphy's Law merely quotes Ginsberg's theorem and Freeman's Commentary, which is not a reliable source.
 * Freeman's Commentary is an unreliable blog post by H. Freeman that copies this article verbatim. What makes H. Freeman a reliable source on Ginsberg's theorem?
 * A Google News Archive search yields trivial mentions. The theorem is quoted with no discussion of it or its history.
 * Nothing in the article is verifiable except for the quote of the theorem and its originator. Thus, this article should be deleted. Goodvac (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is helpful but doesn't support your conclusion in my view. A mention in Joy of Physics and Murphy's Law seems sufficient to establish notability. Joja  lozzo  21:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? I've already explained that the theorem is tangential to the main topic in Joy of Physics, and in Murphy's Law, the theorem is merely quoted—no detailed discussion in both. How is that significant coverage? How do those sources discuss the theorem in depth as required by WP:GNG: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail? Goodvac (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter  (talk)  14:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

 *Merge to Laws of Thermodynamics as a minor section, getting rid of the Freeman stuff. This isn't worth having an article solely devoted to it. Alternatively, merge to Alan Ginsberg. I wish people like him at least knew what a theorem is so that they wouldn't mis-use the word. Dingo1729 (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment on the additional sources This smacks of an attempt to bombard. Analyzing each source through the lens of GNG:
 * Discovery, innovation, and risk: case studies in science and technology merely quotes Ginsberg's theorem as a statement of the laws of thermodynamics in "gambling parlance". This source adds no new information. It does not even identify the quoted material as Ginsberg's theorem.
 * Applied reliability-centered maintenance states, "Entropy is a powerful concept and one of the three laws of thermodynamics, (paraphrased)" and proceeds to quote Ginsberg's theorem. Like Discovery, innovation, and risk: case studies in science and technology, this source adds no new information and does not even identify the quoted material as Ginsberg's theorem.
 * Up Tunket Road: The Education of a Modern Homesteader merely quotes the theorem and does not even identify the quoted material as Ginsberg's theorem. In fact, it attributes the theorem to Steven Chu. That beggars comprehension.
 * Trace quantitative analysis by mass spectrometry merely quotes Ginsberg's theorem and adds no new information.
 * Boeing versus Airbus: The Inside Story of the Greatest International Competition in Business quotes "Jean Pierson, a former CEO of Airbus" reciting the theorem. This source adds no new information and does not even identify the quoted material as Ginsberg's theorem.
 * The woolgatherer: a play in two acts is a work of fiction and cannot be used to establish notability.
 * Trace quantitative analysis by mass spectrometry, Boeing versus Airbus: The Inside Story of the Greatest International Competition in Business, and The woolgatherer: a play in two acts are used to source the sentence: "It is sometimes stated as a general adage without specific reference to the laws of thermodynamics." It is synthesis to find uses of Ginsberg's theorem and make a general statement derived from original research. In sum, all the sources in the article constitute trivial coverage of Ginsberg's theorem, thus failing the GNG. Goodvac (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Not much here is there? The Freedman stuff is awful, shouldn't be there at all. (Even the editor who put it in doesn't seem to have a clue who Freedman is, or there would be a bit more exposition on that before launching into quoting him!) After that's gone, all that remains is a restatement of what Ginsberg said. If that should go anywhere on Wikimedia, it's the WikiQuote for Ginsberg - it's clearly not a sufficiently notable work of his, to require repeating on his WP biography. If we think that it's a notable example of "cultural impact/popular perception of the laws of thermodynamics" then perhaps it deserves a brief mention on that WP page. But a freestanding article that merely consists of a Ginsberg quote - no. So delete, I guess. TheGrappler (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Laws of Thermodynamics  - per Dingo1729 (nod to Thegrappler and Goodvac).  Joja  lozzo  16:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I oppose a merge because the article about the Laws of Thermodynamics should not be bloated by the addition of a non-notable theorem discussed by few if any academics. Per WP:UNDUE, "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." In addition, Verifiability states, "Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy." A restatement of the theorem in the law of dynamics article, without any secondary analysis (since there isn't any), violates "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources." Goodvac (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The first Google news archive result defines it at the start and uses it in its title. Ginsberg's Theorem Haunting Horsemen. Ocala Star-Banner - Jul 26, 1979. Its defined at  and gets mentioned in two other news sources which are hidden behind paywalls.  Gets mentioned in dozens of books.   D r e a m Focus  18:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You said it yourself: "mentioned", meaning passing mentions.
 * "Ginsberg's Theorem Haunting Horsemen". The theorem is mentioned in a local newspaper in the local section about a non-notable local story. None of the information is usable in the article because the information can serve only as trivia.
 * "Calendar offers some of the important rules of life" quotes the theorem and states, "My theory on this is if you always expect the worse you will not be disappointed and your predictions will come through and other times you will be pleasantly surprised and you will be proved wrong." Information about the theorem is confined to the end of the article. The article's beginning discusses Murphy's Laws and other sayings such as Rune's Rule and Chrisholm's First Corollary. The author states her opinion about these theorems, but her opinion is unusable because it is not notable.
 * "The rules of the game: you can't win or quit". I have access to this pay-walled article. I will quote the relevant portions of the article:"According to the dust jacket of 'The Official Rules,' Paul Dickson noticed some years ago that when he cut himself shaving, the size of the cut was directly proportional to the importance of the event he was shaving for. Intrigued Dickson set out in search of further such laws of modern life. This compendium The definitive annotated collection of laws principles and instructions for dealing with the real world is the result. Its 1500 entries are arranged alphabetically. On the first page for example are Abbott's Admonitions 1) If you have ask you're not entitled to know 2) ... ... There is no immunity from Herblock's Law. If it's good, they'll stop making it. No divinity can grant dispensation from Boston's Irreversible Law of Clutter. In any household junk accumulates to fill the space available for its storage. What it all adds up to is perhaps best stated in Ginsberg's Theorem: 1 You can't win 2 You can't break even 3 You can't even quit the game. But at least with Dickson at hand you know the official rules ARNOLD R ISAACS." This article is a review of Paul Dickson's The Official Rules. Ginsberg's Theorem is tangential to the main topic and is merely quoted with no discussion.
 * "There Aren't Very Many Things in Life As Bad As a Bad Limerick" (archive) merely quotes Ginsberg's theorem and adds no new information.
 * These sources from Google News Archive do not establish notability. And the passing mentions from Google Books I have already analyzed above. No authoritative individuals discuss the theorem. Goodvac (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Authoritative individuals? Since when is that a requirement?  These aren't passive mentions, but people actually writing out the entire theorem.  You can't get better coverage than that!  You can't have a page of text talking about three sentences either, and they are self explanatory.   D r e a m Focus  00:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merely duplicating the theorem proves nothing. GNG requires significant, independent reliable sources. How are quotes of the theorem significant coverage? Detailed analysis of the theorem from reliable sources is significant coverage, but I see none of that here. Goodvac (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added the quotation to Wikiquotes, Allen_Ginsberg. There really seems to be nothing to be said more than the ""theorem"" itself. I'm planning on redirecting this article there. Nothing else here seems worth saving. Any objections? Dingo1729 (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep but only as a redirect to wikiquotes, Allen_Ginsberg. Dingo1729 (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2011 (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.