Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King David's Sling

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. Stifle (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

King David's Sling[edit]

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

Non-notable thought experiment on the possibility of superluminal communication. The author of this article was able to get an article published (which he uses as the source for this Wikipedia article) in the American Journal of Modern Physics, a publication of the Science Publishing Group, which has been identified as a known predatory publisher. The concept itself is completely without merit, but even as a hoax, it is not notable in that it has received no other coverage than the author's own publication of this article in several venues. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear cut case of failing to meet WP:GNG. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 16:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete bunk written by a philosophy student who never took a basic class on special relativity. It's pure nonsense published a journal which can at best be described as having a non-existent peer review process, and at worst, who willfully publishes quackery because it makes them a quick buck on the back of authors. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG also not enough content. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Fringe and User:Headbomb above. Complete bunk. I have just read the paper and cannot believe how scientifically illiterate it is.Martin451 02:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; there's no way from Earth to Mars (ba dum tsss) that this passes WP:GNG; also there's so little content here that even if it did pass, I'd say it would be better just to blow it up and start over. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT Delete; This is not a thought experiment. A thought experiment was used as a foil to expound upon the scientific method employed. The real experiment, as pictured in fig.1 of the cited article, is a real experiment based on classical physics. Glenm101 (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenm101 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether it is a thought experiment, whether the results are right or wrong, whether it is scientifically coherent or not. The issue is WP:Fringe and WP:Notability, the experiment does not have extensive WP:third-party sources talking about it, and for good reason, the author displays a complete non understanding of physics.Martin451 16:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take note; WikiDan61 has written to me the following: "By this, I assume you mean figure 1 of your paper published in the Journal of Modern Physics. That figure shows the apparatus of a rotating disk with a mounted emitter that, by the text of your paper, would be rotating at some 3.5 x 10^9 RPM in order to achieve the required faster-than-light communications. By calling this a "real experiment", you are implying that you have, in fact, built this apparatus and launched it into orbit to test the hypothesis. (Or, at the very least, built the apparatus on earth.) If this is not the case, then you have not performed a "real experiment", but only a "thought experiment"." Glenm101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wrote this note on GlenM's user talk page because I thought that the differentiation between a thought experiment an a real experiment was not germane to the discussion of the notability of this topic. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Regarding notability, much has been said to denigrate Science Publishing Group’s (SPG) reputation. This attack seems to be focused on Beall’s List, a list of “Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers”. This is an incredibly extensive list of some five hundred publishers. As each “possible” predatory publisher is listed, I do not understand why all publishers are not listed; after all, anything is “possible”. One can only assume that those publishers who do not make this list do so by way of cronyism. Glenm101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A single (or several) published paper(s) are not enough for a wikipedia article, even if they appear in Physical Review Letters or Nature. What is needed is many other sources talking about the idea in a meaningful way. Wikipedia is not here to publish wp:original research, or promote individual scientific papers.Martin451 16:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is clear you people have work to do.--Glenm101 (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What work would that be? The burden of proof is upon the author. If you can show that this paper has received significant attention -- that it has been extensively cited or itself the subject of independent articles -- then there might be a chance of keeping the article. Otherwise, not. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Entirely non-notable fringe WP:OR, sourced by a single paper that wouldn't pass any kind of peer review. After reading it, I have to say that User:Martin451 nailed it with "cannot believe how scientifically illiterate it is". Kolbasz (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio from the linked pseudo-paper, `a5b (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC) and not notable original research.`a5b (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyright violation?--Glenm101 (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No copyright violation apparent. The Science Publishing Group states on its terms and conditions page:
    4. All articles published by SciencePG on this website marked "Open Access" are licensed by the respective authors of such articles for use and distribution by SciencePG subject to citation of the original source in accordance with the Open Access license.

Still not notable, but at least not a copyright violation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Open Access is not CC-BY-SA or compatible. It states only about "distribution by SciencePG", not about distribution by third parties.`a5b (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that SPG leaves the copyright ownership with the original author, with SPG having a license to publish from the author. The distinction is moot however; we either delete because of copyvio or because of notability. In either case, we delete. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - In case there is any confusion regarding copyright, I do believe copyright rests with me as I am the corresponding author of the journal article.--Glenm101 (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, all that should be needed to fix potential copyright issues is quotation marks and attribution. Quoting portions (in this case: a single line) of abstracts is textbook fair use. Kolbasz (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2014 (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.