Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahdaei paradox


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Shahdaei paradox

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Classical example of vanity page. GScholar finds zero hits for "shahdaei", let alone "shahaei paradox". Idem for Gbooks. The journal (physics international) where the primary article on which this is apparently based is so obscure that it is not even indexed by GScholar. (or any other database I tried) TR 15:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I just found this article while doing GA reviews. The creator has nominated this article twice, and mine was the second quick fail. It appears to me to be POV pushing of a fringe theory. All the references except for the "Physics International" article are not directly related to the subject. I see no reason why this deserves a stand-alone article. AstroCog (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I've tried to clean up the page and to coax the author into saying things more plainly but it hasn't worked, and I guess I felt it had some external support:
 * a plain google for (shahdaei paradox -wikipedia) gives a good-sounding 156 hits today;
 * but ("shahdaei paradox" -wikipedia -wikimedia) gives only 62,
 * while ("shahdaei paradox" -wikipedia -wikimedia -wapedia -"latest news and information on") gives only 7, and all of those are either WP derivatives or wordlist sites. Oh dear.


 * Conclusion: Absolutely no support beyond Koorosh Shahdaei himself. Quite a COI. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: I removed a fair amount of copy-vios and close paraphrases, I agree that this appears to be a fringe theory with no mainstream support. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

____ Physics International is a peer review journal, initially this was one of the requirements that wa accepted by wikipedia in the begining, the fact is that this is something that gives a value to readers and science in general, so why delete, if we want to share knowledge?kooroh shahdaei 18:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not Delete, the fact is that there exist a paradox, whih is obvoius, as truly there is no length contration at Y direction. The reason for having other soures, it mailny about symmetry and approximations that are used as arguments in this article. The other fact is that the paradox is novel and it is not very strange at this early stage to find other articles disussing this. If someone thinks that the paradox doesn't exist please motivate. About the name as I mentioned to other editors, it is not important to shahdaei paradox name, it could be change. kooroh shahdaei 17:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koorosh.shahdaei (talk • contribs)  — Koorosh.shahdaei (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * When this paradox is discussed in reliable sources, which for this subject would be quality peer reviewed journals, then a Wikipedia article may well be appropriate. Until then it is not. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Whether the paradox exists or not is irrelevant for this discussion. The issue at hand is notability as described in the WP:N guideline. The basic minimal requirement is that the subject is covered in multiple independent third party sources. Wikipedia is not a platform to present your personal research. See WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOX.TR 17:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * peer reviewed journals which is a primary requirement for publishing an article, as regards "Science Publication/Physics International" it covers almost all kind of science and is as stated by this Publication itself: Physics International is a peer reviewed international scientific journal launched to cover current research in Physics. This journal is an open access and devoted to the publication of research / review articles concerned with the description, solution, and applications of physics. Bold text. Then this part is certainly fulfilled, as also initially was accepted by Wikipedia. kooroh shahdaei 18:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koorosh.shahdaei (talk • contribs)  — Koorosh.shahdaei (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Indeed appreciate all comments and feedback so far, which are very valuable. In the comments it was a common discussion about the copy right issue, for me it was the first Wikipedia article and the intentions was not at all making any violation, rather it was a misunderstanding, I just deleted the copy right text, but didn’t follow the procedure as it wasn’t clear in the first place. The intention is not indeed to promote own ideas, it is just simply to make a little contribution to science, at the same time the requirements must be fulfilled, so regardless how this discussion will end, I strongly believe that all human beings should share any valuable ideas for a better world. kooroh shahdaei 22:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koorosh.shahdaei (talk • contribs)
 * You are failing to understand. If you wish to contribute to science fine, but Wikipedia is not the place. This is an encyclopaedia where articles are sourced to reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as gobbledegook and junk science. A more charitable interpretation is that the article is a hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete as not notable -- only appears in Shahdaei's own paper. -- 202.124.75.227 (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 *  Do not Delete I think we need scientific arguments rather than expressions like gobbledegook and junk science or hoax. This is a simple fact that we have a paradox and it is not difficult to understand e.g. looking at figures and the animation, they are pedagogical. I agree that the text might be made easier to be understand, in that case need suggestion. As it is novel it takes time as some of paradoxes can take years to be commonly accepted, but it doesn’t mean we should disregard them as they are new. Please it would be better for everybody that we have scientific arguments as regards e.g. the physical part and text. kooroh shahdaei 08:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koorosh.shahdaei (talk • contribs)  — Koorosh.shahdaei (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Koorosh, please don't take offense, you have made your point. The issue here is not whether the science is right or wrong, but whether Wikipedia is the right place for this article. The guideline (WP:OR) explicitly forbids 'Original Research' in the encyclopedia - this is not a research journal; the only sources which are acceptably reliable are independent, secondary publications such as reviews and newspaper articles about science - we can't rely either on other Wikipedia articles, or on an author's own publications (as evidence of notability). It is not our job to judge science, that is for the editors of Nature and other journals. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Chiswick Chap, thank you for your comments, as already pointed out this article was published by an publisher which works under peer reviewed journalism principal. kooroh shahdaei 09:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koorosh.shahdaei (talk • contribs)
 * 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.