Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodore Theodorsen Relativity Theory


 * 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, with no prejudice to a small referenced comment being added to Theodore Theodorsen article. Davewild (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Theodore Theodorsen Relativity Theory

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Expired PROD. I have no expertise at all in this area, so I'm bringing it to AfD for consensus. From the PROD reasoning: "No evidence of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. There are no such references in the article and searching for "Theodore Theodorsen" relativity -wiki gets zero relevant ghits. Probable copyvio - large parts of the article appear to be copied from Theodorsen's published works and are presumably still copyright." GlassCobra 22:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep The theory looks bonafide, as there is plenty of sources available to support it, outside of google. But the fact remains it looks like stream of consciousness copyvio. We need a mathematician/physicist to look to determine the validity of the article. If the article can be cleaned, copyvio and the suitable sources found, I say keep. scope_creep (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please realize that the sources given aside from Theodorsen's own work all predate his work.  Thus, they lend nothing to the notability of the theory at hand.  Someguy1221 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Here is a book discussing his work. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0930403851
 * Comment. According to this web site the subject areas covered by this book do not include relativity. This web site says that that book includes a paper by Theodore Theodorsen called Relativity and classical physics, so he seems to have had something to say about the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I think this is a hoax. Theodore Theodorsen was an aerodynamicist. In his main WP article, there are external references to his published papers, and they are all aerodynamics. The only reference to relativity in his main article was added only on 27 September by anonymous IP 167.206.147.218. The only paper by him that this article cites is from 1977, when he was 80. I haven't time to read this article fully today, I'll look at it tomorrow. JohnCD (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I posted the original prod. From the sound of it he was a notable aerodynamicist but went seriously off piste over relativity. His only publication on the subject seems to have been in a fringe journal - in any case there are NO ghits for his work in this area and no relevant references in the article. Anyway the article seems to be a copyvio. andy (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge a brief summary to Theodore Theodorsen and delete the rest. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. A lack of google hits is not definitive, given the age of the material. However, theories in the area of Physics and Relativity have a long shelf life, even if proven wrong. The fact that no current or recent papers reference this work, even if only to refute it, is troubling. It's like there's a big, sucking hole in the universe where mention of this paper should be, and that hints at a possible exaggeration of the notability (or existance) of this topic. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 03:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable, although the article needs a major revamp and additional sources. &mdash; Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 14:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - how on Earth can you say "Seems notable"? The article does not give a single valid independent reference - most of the references are just standard works on relativity. His only published work on the subject seems to be Relativity and classical physics and there is no evidence that anyone has ever cited it, which is the only true measure of scientific notability. It's indexed in a few minor publications - searching Google finds 10 hits for "Relativity and classical physics" theodorsen, most of them duplicates of entries in "Proceedings of the Theodorsen Colloquium" and a fringe, non-peer reviewed, journal called "Galilean Electrodynamics". And that's all.
 * Further comment re copyvio. The author (a Single Purpose Account) has uploaded lots of images of equations to the article. He's tagged them all with PD-self. So therefore they are either really his equations, not Theodorsen's (which makes the article a hoax) or they're in breach of copyright. andy (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I imagine the pd-self tag refers to the image, not to the mathematical content of the image. But that's the wrong way to add mathematical equations to a Wikipedia article; he should be using &lt;math&gt; ... &lt;/math&gt;. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is that if it's not his maths then he can't give copyright permission for the images. And if it is his maths the article is a hoax. andy (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Clearly non-notable fringe theory (or hoax).  It's also more or less complete bullshit, if anyone cares. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per andy. This is a hoax. I was fooled by the equation images and not being familiar with the subject. So I've changed my vote. Creator of the article, should be given a warning for trolling. &mdash;  Aššur-bāni-apli II (talk · contribs) 22:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment and proposal No, it's not a hoax - thanks to Phil Bridger's note above it is clear that Theodorsen did write such a paper. But we don't know when or where it was published: the reference in the article is to a "Theodorsen Colloquium" of Det Kongelige Norske Videnskabers Selskab (The Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences and Letters) in June 1977 - probably to celebrate his 80th birthday that year; but it seems unlikely that that was first publication.


 * I have spent the afternoon in the local university library working my way along 12 shelf feet of their books, old and new, on relativity, without finding any trace of Theodorsen's theory. It seems not to have made the slightest impact. That being so, I can't think it notable, or that there is any point keeping it in all its mathematical glory. I propose that we insert a brief reference into Theodorsen's main article, (which I have boldly done here, for anyone to improve or revert) and then delete this article.


 * If anyone thinks it worth while, I would be prepared to contact DKNVS and ask them for details of the paper, so that we could insert a better reference to it. JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I reverted your reference in the main article. It relies on the Relativity article which everyone seems to agree is very dodgy. We don't actually know anything about this paper other than its existence. Worth contacting the DKNVS and then inserting a reference into the main article. andy (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we do know about it, actually: we have it, or large extracts from it, here in front of us. I think it's most unlikely that Gaccolla has laboriously made all this up. All that we don't know is whether, when or where it was published. But I'll ask DKNVS if they can tell us that. JohnCD (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We know of three possible publications of the paper: in the DKNVS journal in 1977, in the book "A modern view and appreciation of the works of Theodore Theodorsen" in 1992, and in Galilean Electrodynamics Vol 6, no. 4, p. 63 in 1995. None of these, presumably, are the first publication. I will ask DKNVS if they know when that was. If that can be tracked down, I think TT's interest in relativity, (but not the detail of his theory), is worth a short paragraph in his main article, and possibly also a mention in Alternatives to general relativity. But the article under review here should go, anyway. JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. andy (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is definitely NOT a hoax, but possibly WP:OR. I vaguely recall reading this before.... Hmmm.  Leaning to keeping it for at least a few days. 14:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC) signed Bearian&#39;sBooties (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Everyone is being very polite about this pathetic article. It's probably not a hoax but there's not a single word in it that can be relied on. And even if it were gospel truth it's based round one non-notable paper that was mentioned in passing in a small Norwegian conference and then republished in a fringe journal of Einstein-sceptics many years later. Theodorsen's "real" work is highly notable and frequently cited but this oddity of a paper (about which we have no reliable facts anyway) sank like a stone. andy (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge as a minor comment into the main article, per Clarityfiend, and as done once by JohnCD, as soon as a suitable ref. to the article is found. Tim Ross ·talk  20:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

GPA (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * MERGE is acceptable by author. The man Theodore Theodorsen was a great man with countless insights into mathematics. Unless someone is willing to prove this man wrong than this article should stay as a benchmark of out diverse knowledge of relativity. Albeit alternative knowledge. This article was given to me to post "NO" copyright or publication rights exists. The present holder (owner) of this information has freely given this information to the public domain. The owner is the son of Theodore Theodorsen. Any dispute on this matter should be directed to him. @ theodorsen@aol.com. Don't shoot the messenger. I just helped him post the information, I didn't make it up. This information was given to the public once before and that publication was "GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS" Vol 6 no. 4 July/August 1995. The posted information was a reflection of that publications dissemination of the journals of Theodore Theodorsen. Theodore Theodorsen was a quiet man with little to do with the spotlight. His vision and teachings are to this day being used in mathematics. Again this information is for the world to have. I don't claim to be a math wizard, but I believe that there are many things that are left out of the public domain for wacky reasons. I am not a Wiki wizard and have a lot to learn. I do know one thing. If you delete this mans work you will end his contribution to the future thinkers of tomorrow.
 * Comment. If you'll read the comments above, you'll notice that while concerns of a hoax have abounded, the primary concern for which this article will be deleted is the apparent lack of notability of the theory. Not every theory originating from a notable person gets an article; only those theories that are verifiable by third-party reliable sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note re recent !votes - GPA is the article's creator Gaccolla; User:167.206.147.218 comes from NY as does Gaccolla, has an overlapping edit history on the article, and may be connected with Gaccolla. andy (talk) 23:00, 23

I just assumed my vote counted also. I was never hiding who I was to the discussion board. If you look at the edits you can see for yourself gaccolla is listed everywhere. I am sorry to all for the confusion if any existed. GPA (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My Vote


 * 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.