Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triplet 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Triplet paradox

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:N. This is basically the regurgitation of the original paper by Leus in the predatory American Journal of Modern Physics. Judging from the talk page, this seems to be the result of a classroom assignment. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude  (talk)  07:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete/merge to Twin paradox. Classroom projects should not be allowed to create new articles, rarely are they really stand-alone notable topics. Reywas92Talk 14:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge but delete to Twin paradox This is full of original research and copied information. Should not be a standalone article, as this becomes a N+ case of the general GR paradox
 * Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge as suggested, seems like a fine idea. I have no idea about the concept itself. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to merge. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as relying on a primary source and original research (which uses the secondary sources but is not contained in them) to show that the interpretation in the primary source is wrong. This is useful for a classroom but not for an encyclopedia. The purpose of Leus's paper, and follow-ons by others equally dubious, is to show there are problems with special relativity. There is no need to merge such stuff anywhere else. A good discussion of the "triplet paradox" is here and could be used as a source for a mention in the twin paradox article, but nothing in this article is of use. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as there is nothing worth merging and the title has not been established to be a likely search term. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete classroom project based on a crackpot paper. Nothing worth merging. Tercer (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2023 (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.