Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asif's equation and Einstien's theory of special relativity

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 Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G5. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asif's equation and Einstien's theory of special relativity

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

So this page is based on a paper that just came out this summer (August 2013) that means that no sources (or rather, it is unlikely that any sources) from before that date are useful in determining notability of the subject. We can probably assume with some certainty that all the references from >20 years ago do not mention asif or his equation. This leaves one reference, which is to the paper itself. The only results of a google search seem to be the paper itself. Therefore, I do not think that this topic is notable (yet?). Benboy00 (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir, this article is based on research that is based an experiment and I have just uploaded it on Wikipedia so that readers can find this new invention. Since it is already published, I am not violating any copyrights as I have provided reliable sources(references). This article modifies some historical laws in physics. I need your help to improve it, I am trying to put more reliable sources, kindly do not delete it. Dell nole (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your contribution. ~~Please note that the problem with this article isn't copyright violation, it is lack of notability.~~ More reliable sources would certainly help, but I'm not sure where they could come from. Since this paper has only been published for a few months, it is unlikely that it would be covered by any books. I doubt that newspapers would cover something this technical unless it were very significant (they usually only go into science for medical things, space things, really expensive things, or things that could be made into futuristic gadgets). Most other reliable sources are available on the internet, and I haven't been able to find any mentioning this paper. There may be some urdu sources, I guess, but probably not, for the same reasons. It seems likely, therefore, that this topic just isn't notable at this time. It may become notable in the future, but until then, it might be best to wait instead of creating an article now. Benboy00 (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that this article is a huge copyvio. Not quite sure why I didn't see it before (probably because I was focusing on notability) but this entire article is actually just a direct copy of the paper. Unfortunately, this is (probably) not allowed. I suspect that IOSR papers are not compatible with wikipedia's CC-BY-SA lisence. If this is the case, then the speedy delete on this article will be acted upon very quickly, which may moot this discussion. Benboy00 (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2013 (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.