mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operator of proper-time-derivative Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Operator_of_proper-time-derivative

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.  Sandstein  05:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operator of proper-time-derivative

[edit]
Operator of proper-time-derivative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is some consensus at WT:PHYS#Operator of proper-time-derivative to bring this page to AfD, citing unreliable texts and fringe theory. Izno (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Articles need to be independently verifiable. VQuakr (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep The book “Fizicheskie teorii i beskonechnaia vlozhennost’ materii” is a digital edition intended for distribution through the network in electronic form. It was registered by Russian book palace in October 2009 with ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0. The link to the book not work since the site is moving to another platform. And I do not work with Cornell arXiv repository. Fedosin (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources. The only sources given are WP:SPS. — HHHIPPO 07:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Classic WP:OR. -- 202.124.75.6 (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to "Category:All articles lacking sources" in Wikipedia are for a long time about 254,775 articles without references. If the problem only in my references, and if they are not good let take them away! Then the article will be without references and we will speak only about the article itself. Fedosin (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please take these articles away, but first make sure to do a reasonable effort to find (or encourage others to find) good sources for them, just like people here have tried —but failed— to find secondary sources for your work. DVdm (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Fedosin: First, the existence of problematic articles is by itself not a reason to add and keep another one. Second, in this case reliable sources are not only missing from the article, but there is reasonable doubt that they even exist: several people have spent time and effort to find some, but without any success. Even the author of the original paper doesn't seem to know of any secondary sources. (You're more than welcome to correct me if this is wrong: do you know of any citations of your work in publications by others?) Third: the reason why secondary sources are important here is not only to verify the contents of the article but mainly to establish the notability of the described concept. Finally, speaking about the article itself is not the point here. It doesn't matter if its content is useful or elegant, not even if it's right or wrong. It only matters if it's notable, and notability is demonstrated by secondary sources. I'm sorry we can't help you, but you first have to convince some of your peers that your work is interesting, then Wikipedia can document that. — HHHIPPO 21:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; not reliably sourced, not notable, original research. It is very unfortunate that some other articles are poorly sourced; but if you notice that one end of the swimming pool has a yellow tinge, the appropriate response is not to pull your shorts down and contribute a floater. bobrayner (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unreliable source on non-notable topic. Fedosin, let me suggest that it is almost never appropriate to write Wikipedia articles about your own papers. If your work becomes important, someone else will have mentioned it in secondary sources, and people will notice it and decide to put it on Wikipedia. Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 17:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The real question here is how much longer Fedosin will be allowed to abuse wikipedia for the goal of self-promotion of his non-notable writings. This will just be another in an ever-growing string of his deleted articles after wasting the time and efforts of others, and it won't bother him at all because he places his self-promotional garbage in English on Wikimedia's cesspit of pretend academia, just as he puts his self-promotional garbage repeatedly deleted on the Russian wikipedia[1] [2][3][4] on www.wikiznanie.ru.

    Fedosin is not interested in wikipedia except as a tool of self-promotion, and I'm sure he's happy with the scrapes that spam his junk all over the internet. Would anyone like to have a machine translation into Thai language of the article deleted here? I can't imagine why we all wouldn't want that. Thankfully, it's available online, due the abuse of this encyclopedia by Fedosin. It's well past time to pull the plug. Tim Shuba (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is not the place for that. If you would like to see him blocked or banned, bring a discussion up at WP:AN or WP:RFC. It may be his actions fall under the purview of Wikipedia:Fringe theories. --Izno (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2011 (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.