Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radiation-Induced Mass


 * 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Radiation-Induced Mass

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Completing nomination on behalf of Danko Georgiev. Rationale is: "This is Afshar's original research, not notable, not even publishd in peer-reviewed journal." Pgallert (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Caution, everyone -- Georgiev has a real bee in his bonnet about Afshar (see Gerogiev's user page). Can independent physics-knowledgeable people take a look?  It does appear that AIP proceedings are (at least in recent years) peer-reviewed. EEng (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Double Caution, the paper is peer-reviewed, and notable. Georgiev has been prone for years to create problems with matters related to Afshar's work. He has been blocked from Wikipedia for insisting on breaking Wikipeida rules in the past. Sfsupro (talk)


 * Unless other people than Asfhar wrote about it, I don't see how this meets WP:N. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is significant work by a notable physicist, subject of a current debate on LHC and Higgs bosons. See my comments below. Sfsupro (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as an incomplete stub. In its current state this is more harmful than good. This isn't fringe science or psychoceramics, but it is a blue-sky theory that has not yet been widely adopted. Give it a few years, who knows. It's credible to cover this on WP, but only if it's clearly presented as a new theory that's interesting, but not yet canon. Part of this would be to discuss its advocates and their background. If there's any counter-view that addresses this directly, that should be covered too.
 * As this stub is, it presents it as simple fact. This is wrong and misleading, especially to a lay audience. Right out of encyclopedic scope and whilst not OR, it would be POV. If we can't fix that, we should delete it.
 * Now if the editors who want to lynch me for being a COI POV physicist could please form a line to the left, and those wishing to lynch me for not being an active physicist or for being an applied physicist rather than a theoretician could form on the right. Dutchmen wishing to just call me a dick, take it back to Commons. Thankyou. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read my comments below and reconsider you vote in light the facts presented. Sfsupro (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't change my view a jot. I'm already happy that the theory is notable, the problem is the quality of this sub-stub "article". We're arguing about one sentence here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep and expand the stub. This is a significant peer-reviewed paper by a notable physicist who published an alternative mechanism to Inertia more than a decade ago. The fact that it is discussed in a London Daily Telegraph article makes this article notable enough. Will add this link to the article. Sfsupro (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Keep and expand" isn't a valid conclusion, because we don't have a team of trained minions to allocate the work of expansion to. If you can expand it during this AfD, please do so (and I'm happy to change my !vote). More likely, if you want to write a new article from scratch (One existing sentence will be no great loss) and take your time over it, I'd be happy to see it return, even if we'd deleted this stub in the meantime. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the rationale for the deletion nomination was "This is Afshar's original research, not notable, not even publishd in peer-reviewed journal" which is utterly false based on evidence I presented, and you agree with me, then you should consider changing your vote now. If you want to delete the article because it is just One existing sentence, then you should start a new deletion nomination on that basis, which will be easily fixed as I intend to write up the article with more details in the next few hours. Have to teach a class, will do it afterwards. Sfsupro (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No rush. It's here for 7 days regardless.
 * On a separate point though, original noms are just an initial basis for discussion, not a case to be proven. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK started the expansion. Please feel free to help. Sfsupro (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete unless notability evidence appears really, really soon --- and please don't scream at me. There is clearly a longstanding shouting match going on in this corner of Wikipedia's coverage of physics, and I don't want to get drawn in.  However... the article is about a concept, "Radiation-induced mass," not about the paper.  The concept needs to be notable, and I don't see a single reference to "radiation-induced mass" anywhere, period.  Nowhere.  It may be groundbreaking.  It may be the next big thing.  And Afshar's paper may be a reliable source on it.  But the concept doesn't seem to be notable, as evidenced by the fact that no one seems to have taken note of it, at least not yet. The Daily Telegraph article changes nothing -- Afshar himself doesn't mention r-i mass in that article and even if he did, one scientist talking to the press about his own theory doesn't make that theory notable.  Since there's an AfD underway, those who think the article should stay need to focus on refs demonstrating notability, meaning comment by neutral third parties on r-i mass, or citation of this paper (or other papers on r-i mass, though as mentioned I can't find any) by other scientists.  Elaboration of the theory itself will be needed if the article stays, but won't help with notability.  EEng (talk)
 * P.S. Sorry, I misspoke above. What I should have said is, I can't find a single reference to radiation-induced mass in scientific publications, other than a 1999 paper by Afshar and a brief nontechnical 2004 comment in New Scientist.  (There are plenty of blogposts reprinting press releases from Afshar's "Institute of Radiation-Induceded Mass," however.) EEng (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2010 (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.