Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spin-spacetime EPR Gedanken-Experiment


 * 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. Consensus is that the primary content itself hasn't been shown to be notable, though it may be in the future. At that point it can be recreated. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Spin-spacetime EPR Gedanken-Experiment

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not the venue to promote ideas from arXiv preprints that have not been formally published or even cited by other researchers. I prod'ed the article; the prod was removed by the article creator, who has a conflict of interest. The rationale for removing the prod (cut off in the edit summary, but readable on the Talk page) does not address the basic problem that it is, at best, too soon to call this topic notable. Other than reference 5, the citations are background material and do not pertain to this specific topic. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, let me add that the arxiv preprint "Spin spacetime censorship" (ref 5) was sent by me and prof Ido Kaminer to Nature Physics. The editors of Nature physics decided that this work is important and therefore they sent it to referees. We are currently waiting for their answers. I've made an effort to make this topic well explained and well presented because I believe that it is important for the field of quantum gravity - using this gedanken experiment one can rule out certain quantum gravity theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemirov1 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please Check again SEE REF 6 that I added today - it is the peer-reviewed well-known conference of QUANTUM 2019 that contains this topic (see p. 174 in http://www.quantum2019.unito.it/files/Abstracts_sum.pdf) !
 * The mere fact that a research item was presented at a conference does not make it notable, in Wikipedia's sense of the word, and neither does the mere fact of appearing in a journal (all the more so if the peer review process is still ongoing). Tens of thousands of papers are published and sink with the merest ripple. We have to have evidence that the scientific community has paid significant attention to it. If conference presentations, arXiv preprints and papers currently in review at respectable journals qualified, I could create half a dozen articles about my own research, but they don't, so I haven't. Wikipedia does not try to lead the scientific consensus; it only follows. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I think this is a clear case of WP:FORUM. To quote the relevant part of the policy: Wikipedia is not the place to publish "Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion." Tercer (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I was unable to find any indepeendent reliable sourcing for this topic. Without indpendent reliable sourcing, the topic completely fails notability thresholds per WP:GNG. With no sourcing, there is no verfiable material in the Wikipedia sense of the word, so alternatives to deletion WP:ATD are closed off as well. Hence delete. -- 18:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a well-written article, with a number of sources. However, the majority of the sources only provide background information -- thus, while important to the article, they fail to show notability of the topic at hand. To quote the page creator, from an unsigned comment on the talk page, this thought experiment has been presented in several conferences including QUANTUM 2019 (Torino, Italy) and the pre-print ("Spin-spacetime censorship") is now in a review process in Nature physics. The conference paper is better than nothing, but a pre-print is not a reliable source. Overall, this the GNG are not met.
 * Further, I want to ask if he has a conflict of interest to disclose. BenKuykendall (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per XOReaster.--MaoGo (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is manifestly not suitable for Wikipedia.--Srleffler (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Topic is not notable at the moment, maybe in the future... WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTESSAY. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:OR. Having read the article, it does look promising, but the concept is too new to include here, and is essentially original research. A redirect to Quantum gravity is another solution, pardon the pun. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2020 (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.