Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Einstein's thought experiments

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 keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein's thought experiments

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research and not a suitable topic for WP. Has many problems: consists of unencyclopaedic writing from the first paragraph ("In his youth, he rode beams of light"), and only gets more florid later on. Numerous lengthy quotes and sections written as lists not prose. But primarily is original research, relying heavily on interpreting primary sources. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I provide many primary source references for people who are interested, I have carefully made sure that all statements and claims that I made in the article are based on reliable secondary sources.

Please provide a list of statements that you claim represent wp:OR of primary source material. I will be able to justify all of them with quotations from secondary sources. Some may require my scanning books and journals that are not available online. In those cases, I will upload scans of the secondary source material to Google Drive for you to examine.

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Einstein's thought experiments are well known, unique, and his use of them is an encyclopaedic topic. According to Sophie Roux in Thought Experiments in Methodological and Historical Contexts, "Every elementary textbook on thought experiments begins with or at least includes a catalogue of Einstein's famous thought experiments". The examples given are not OR. They are, for the most part, the well known and most cited examples. Florid language can be cleaned up, AfD is not cleanup. SpinningSpark 18:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Spinningspark - Deletion is not cleanup. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. No OR, but could use some wikicyclopedizing (aka unpaperizing). - DVdm (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be helpful to create a separate Primary Sources reference group so that people can clearly distinguish between primary source material and secondary references. I included a lot of links to primary source material because I am an amateur historian of science, and I happen to love this stuff. But, as is evident from the Afd nomination, my inclusion of so many links to primary source material can be misunderstood.

I'm not sure what to do about my "florid" writing. To me, it is "engaging" writing.

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors are the people who can help you with that. Make a request there. SpinningSpark 22:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've segregated primary sources into a separate group from other references. There are a few places where I could add an additional secondary source reference. Isaacson was my "go to" source, but I was using it so much, I was worried about running out of letters of the alphabet, so I sometimes didn't stick it in at a few points where I probably should have. What happens after you reach the letter "z"? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as content is very notable, but style of writing needs to be toned down. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - scanning the article, nothing stood out as requiring deletion of the article. Needs editing of the "engaging" writing and focusing on "thought experiments". Added "tone" template since that seems to be an early consensus and it can warn the readers as well as flag editors. StrayBolt (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had originally intended the article to be simply a recounting of Einstein's documented thought experiments, ignoring the numerous pastiches that people have claimed to be from Einstein, but which really, like Washington and the cherry tree, represent later fabrications. (Twins in rocket ships and some later variations on the elevator gedanken go in this category.) It would also have allowed me to present nearly a dozen lesser known thought experiments, including a fascinating set that he devised while considering, and refuting, Nordström's theory of gravitation. But I discovered that focusing on the thought experiments themselves, as you seem to suggest, resulted in a dry, disconnected narrative. Rather, I found it much better to focus on a few of Einstein's most important thought experiments and to explain the context in which they were presented. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, ? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the topic is notable; secondary sources are used. --D.H (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup/keep Useful article. --MaoGo (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important topic. There are plenty of sources available. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an incomprehensible nomination. Anyone who knows anything about the history of science, when hearing the phrase "thought experiment", will immediately think of Einstein. These thought experiments form the basis of much of the physics of the last century. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep It needs some cleanup and there is plenty of sources, also it is a important topic. Felicia (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Years ago, I had read Einstein Defiant, by Edmund Bolles, and from that book, I had gotten the mental image of an aging genius completely unable to adapt to the new paradigm of quantum mechanics. A few days ago, I read this article and was stunned. I immediately borrowed Stone’s biography from the library and everything checks out! I have no idea what the nominator meant when he claimed that this article represented original research because everything is documented in secondary sources. Maybe, like myself, he found the view of Einstein presented in this article completely different from everything he had previously learned, and he just didn’t believe what he was reading. Last night, I borrowed Isaacson’s biography from the library, and so far, I can attest to the accuracy of the sourcing. This is one of the best articles in Wikipedia. 24.173.36.59 (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.