Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special relativity - simple explanation

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. Will userfy on the request of anyone who intends to work on it, as always. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Quantum Mechanics - simplified (AfD discussion), A 5 minutes explanation of Relativity (AfD discussion), Special relativity for beginners (AfD discussion), and Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible.

Article was marked for prod, but contested. Delete as Introduction to special relativity already exists. Please read discussion here. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 17:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, here are my (the creator of the article) comments:

  The article has been created as a draft to replace (after polishing it a bit) the current article introduction to special relativity.

  Here are my objections against the current so called "introduction to special relativity". I have also expressed them in the introduction to special relativity article discussion page.

  • it is not a non-technical introduction, but it is linked from the special relativity article as a non-technical introduction
  • it doesn't focus on the theory itself, but on the Minkowski space
  • it uses too much calculations inadequate to the simlicity of the principles
  • it goes into too much detail unnecessary for explanation of the fundamental ideas of the theory
  • it doesn't provide an overview of the most important outcomes - for people not interested in calculation of them
  • it uses special terminology (from the SR area) when not necessary in places where explaining other terms
  • as a result of all the above, it doesn't serve it's purpose, which I believe is to provide a simple overview and explanation of the theory for newcomers with a basic knowledge of mathematics - who are not used to describe things by mathematical formulas; people who will probably open the article are those, who do not understand the special relativity but the current article puts them in the same (if not worse) position--Herr.Schultze 18:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to subpage of author's userpage until it's ready. Deletion would not be productive. Soo 19:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's essentially a POV fork -- Whpq 21:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per Soo. Nickieee 22:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, otherwise move per Soo. As I have noted on talk:Introduction to special relativity:

  • This article is based on a very early version of the special relativity article.
  • It contains many factual errors.
  • It is poorly organized and focused excessively on E=mc².
  • It fails to deal with the underlying postulates of special relativity
  • It fails to discuss many of the important result/predictions of special relativity, or does so only breifly and incoherently.

  While I do agree that Introduction to special relativity is in need of a rewrite, this is an awful basis for it. I once again ask Herr.Schultze to discard this article as the useless piece of ancient (Wikipedia) history that it is, and start over from scratch. --EMS | Talk 05:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move per Soo. I have a couple of subpages where I draft new articles. :) Dlohcierekim 15:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What's up with the "move" vote? The original author is quite capable of making a private copy if they wish, there is no point to suggesting a "move" (which I thus interpret as equivalent to "delete"). linas 04:11, 17 August 2006 (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.