Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Observer-centered formalism

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. -- Cirt (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Observer-centered formalism

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

Wikipedia is not the place to host original synthesis. While many interpretation of physics are indeed observer-centered, there is no such thing as an observer-centered formalism(s). Not even worth redirecting. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Strong delete. The closest I can find is a few mentions of an "external observer formalism" used in the past, which is not the same thing. If this is to be kept, references would have to be added showing that a) this is a concept known to the scientific community, and b) this is noteworthy enough to be useful to include (i.e., not a single authour's pet concept). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to strong delete per WP:OR, as this is self-promotion of the article author's original work, which hasn't been published anywhere that satisfies WP:RS. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Delete. I don't see any harm in keeping it. --Dc987 (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That only applies if it's actually encyclopedic material. If it's this person's own invention, as the nominator seems to be indicating, it violates WP:OR. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree. I've had some reservations, because the original article contributor is new to Wikipedia, and judging by the name is from Russia. The article potentially could be a translation from some Russian publication. And this new user, being unfamiliar with the policies, could have left it hanging, without any references. The closest concept I'm familiar with is Wheeler's "participatory universe", I've never seen this OCF. But again, it could be some translation from Russian. Anyway, I don't think it is "noteworthy enough". So I'm changing my opinion to Neutral. --Dc987 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Delete per WP:OR. Referenced link is self-published non peer-reviewed work. --Dc987 (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: OCF introduces a mathematical object Я describing the Observer and suggests that the laws of physics must explicitly include Я. The observable laws are therefore different for different observers and different branches of Physics might become asymptotic idealisations corresponding to Я-functions that are orthogonal, and thus can not be observed simultaneously. Mr. Sokal, is that you? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Bearian (talk)

I added some references Deniskrasnov (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your supplied reference link is broken; it redirects to the splash page for the free web-host you were using for it. Also, please read WP:RS for guidelines about what types of sources are acceptable for scientific topics. Peer-reviewed journal articles are good. Self-published works on free web-hosts, not so good. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think i fixed the link now. I realise it's not a published article, but how much of a proof do you want? For example (and it's just a first that poped to my mind) this Gravity as an entropic force is an original thought. What's the difference? Alright Erik Verlinde has published an article about it; he's known scientist, but it's still an original thought -- all thoughts are original, arn't they? Can you just read through it and see that it makes scence (and it's not just something i made up and noone knows what it's all about) and let it sit for a while? I mean do i really have to give you a list renowned scientists who voiced an oppinion about OCF? What's the threshold of non-originality? If two people are pondering an idea, is it original? What if seven people are, but three of them disagrees with the rest? I mean we're not talking about Paris Hilton trying to copyright the phrase "It's HOT!"; we're talking about science -- you can see that the concept of OCF has been formulated, so it belongs at free enciclopedia!Deniskrasnov (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"all thoughts are original, arn't they?" Depends on your definition of original thought. We're using this definition here: Original Thought. So, gravity as an entropic force doesn't fit that definition because it is "attributable to a reliable, published source". "do i really have to give you a list renowned scientists who voiced an oppinion about OCF?" Yes, but you must also show where they have published papers about OCF. "What's the threshold of non-originality?" Verifiability, not truth. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Also a search for "Observer-Centered" in google returns 236,000 results. The term "Observer-Centered" is nothing new; the word "formalism" at the end is a general word and is just one of the ways to describe the consept of using "Observer-Centered" way of looking at things. Again I just summorized the idea (isn't that what the enciclopedia is about). Unless someone thinks that the article doesn't reflects the common use of the term, or someone is using it in a conflicting sense, i think it should be kept.Deniskrasnov (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"i think it should be kept." Ok, but it will likely not be kept and you have been told why. In summary: Wikipedia is not for original research or non-notable subjects. If in the future, OCF does become "a subject of hot discussion" as you describe, then someone will readd it. Until that time, however, it'll likely get removed for the reasons above. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of OCF is relatively new, but it is a subject of hot disscussiion in the scientific comunity. Yes you're correct it's originated in Russia. Why do you think it doesnt have a place in here? This entry is not Original Synthesis, it's a concise description of the term and brief list of the reasons of it being a topic of current discussion. I of couse am going to improve and expand it.Deniskrasnov (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You state that it is a subject of hot discussion. Do you have any proof of this? I can't seem to find anything about it anywhere (save the one link you provided). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - except for the one reference in the article (which is published by the author of the article) I don't see any proof that this isn't original thought. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone with at least a MS in Theoretical Physics show up and say something, please.Deniskrasnov (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Headbomb, who has nominated the article for deletion have a phd. Not that it matters.

You are doing it almost exactly wrong. I would recommend you reading this text (by Gerard ′t Hooft, 1999 Nobel Prize in physics): [HOW to BECOME a BAD THEORETICAL PHYSICIST] and this [HOW to BECOME a GOOD THEORETICAL PHYSICIST]. Good luck. --Dc987 (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... while I don't have a PH.D. in Physics (I graduated from the Bronx High School of Science and have a Juris Doctor), I have in fact written and submitted articles to, and been rejected by, the finest of scientific journals. Even the late Ralph Alpher, who reviewed two of my submissions, told me I was onto something. Alas, my original research can not get published here, and neither this. Thanks, Dc9873, for the interesting links. Bearian (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry, the paper is interesting (look out — there are a few spelling errors on names), but like everyone else's original idea, it will have to be recognized by 3rd parties before it can be in Wikipedia. It doesn't matter how strong the original idea is; it really doesn't. Please read WP:OR. -Jordgette (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While interesting, and to my somewhat undereducated mind seems to make sense, the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to explain established concepts, not introduce new ones. (that would be "notable" and "original research") I hope that the author contributes to other established articles which explain modern science. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The meaning of "original research" on Wikipedia is quite unlike a physicist's understanding of the term. Here, if challanged, edits have to be supported by references to published reliable sources. The reference given, by itself, does not meet WP:RS requirements. As such, the entire article is unsatisfactory. At the present time Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for such material. Thincat (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2010 (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.