Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afshar experiment

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 of the debate was keep. Sorry for the delay, people. It's the holidays. howcheng {chat} 21:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Afshar_experiment

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Proposed deletion of original research not published in a refereed journal. Hunter Monroe 17:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC) I have removed the deletion flag based on the consensus to keep the article and Prof. Afshar's commitment below.Hunter Monroe 23:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't the rules say the voting shall continue for 5 days? GangofOne 00:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC) . My mistake; voting continues Hunter Monroe 14:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC). I believe it's normally seven? Oh well! --Kilo-Lima 19:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable. Made the cover of the New Scientist magazine. Although I believe (as does the majority of the physics commuity) that the proposed interpretation is incorrect, that alone is not grounds for deletion. linas 18:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Extremely significant and notable, if unpublished. I do think this is a bit awkward and that we should generally not be writing articles about unpublished work, but this experiment has caused quite a stir. Bikeable 18:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  Comment: This is not a speedy keep. Speedy keeps can only happen if the nominator withdraws the vote to delete and there have been no delete votes so far, or the nomination was in bad faith. Stifle 21:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• If you look at the top of the page, you will see that the deletion nominator Hunter Monroe did in fact withdraw his deletion request. (see the comment by Hunter Monroe 23:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)) The voting was reinstated by Linas per Wiki AfD rules.-- Prof. Afshar 21:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC).

• Speedy Keep Significant and notable. Just because Afshar's paper has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal does not mean it is Original Research! The Wiki policy is clear on this. It says if a research result "has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers" it is not original research. Afshar experiment has been published in Proc. SPIE 5866 which is a "reputable" optics journal, and was the cover story of New Scientist which is a "reputable publisher", often sited by mainstream media as a reliable source. Yes, Afshar's work is controversial, but the controversy is explicitly discussed in the article. Controversy does not constitute a reason for deletion of an article! Hunter Monroe should know that if he is as he claims "not a new WikiPedia user." Physicsmonk 18:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote struck out by Physicsmonk, was not posted by Physicsmonk, see discussion below Physicsmonk 16:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI, the above vote, although signed by User:Physicsmonk, was in fact cast by User:Afshar: see [1].-- linas 21:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Significant and notable. Just because Afshar's paper has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal does not mean it is Original Research! The Wiki policy is clear on this. It says if a research result "has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers" it is not original research. Afshar experiment has been published in Proc. SPIE 5866 which is a "reputable" optics journal, and was the cover story of New Scientist which is a "reputable publisher", often sited by mainstream media as a reliable source. Yes, Afshar's work is controversial, but the controversy is explicitly discussed in the article. Controversy does not constitute a reason for deletion of an article! Hunter Monroe should know that if he is as he claims "not a new WikiPedia user." Physicsmonk 16:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  Comment: This is not a speedy keep. Speedy keeps can only happen if the nominator withdraws the vote to delete and there have been no delete votes so far, or the nomination was in bad faith. Stifle 21:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This is not original research in the Wikipedia sense. Pfalstad 18:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - as per above. Barneyboo (Talk) 18:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - As per above. Deletion would be tantamount to censorship! ehteshami 20:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  Comment: This is not a speedy keep. Speedy keeps can only happen if the nominator withdraws the vote to delete and there have been no delete votes so far, or the nomination was in bad faith. Stifle 21:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The vote of User:ehteshami appears to be the first and only edit of this user on WP, and this user may in fact be a sockpuppet. linas 21:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I categorically reject the above insinuation by linas. This is outrageous! given the same criterion of "first and only edit" for a user immediately renders Hunter Monroe a sockpuppet, which makes this entire deletion request highly suspect. Linas, please check the verasity of your statements before posting them publicly. Prof. Afshar 18:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Linas I'm not a sockpuppet, and do not appreciate your cynicism. User:ehteshami 21:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

My apologies, then. I merely found it surprising that

• A first-time wikipedia editor would be seemingly knowledgable in the language and mechanisms of wikipedia.
• That, out of the several thousand articles up for deletion, that a new editor would choose this article, and would do so within hours of its nomination.
• That a new user's first (and so far only) action would be to dive headlong into a debate.
• That this user's response to my accusation would be so immediate and timely, as if they were watching this page, but are not otherwse engaged in day-to-day WP activities.

Maybe its just a big coincidence, and for that, I apologize. linas 22:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Linas I have been a long user of WP, as an observer. Nonetheless, the same coincidences apply to Hunter Monroe, but I don't see you questioning his motives. User:ehteshami 22:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No, as a matter of fact, the same coincidences do not apply to User:Huner Monroe. linas 22:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It is completely inappropriate that an individual should be involved in the maintenance of a page concerning his own work, and in debates about deleting that page. Science that cannot be published in refereed journals is simply not science, and undermines WikiPedia's reputation.Hunter Monroe 22:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Monroe, my involvement in the Afshar experiment page has been limited to ensuring the accuracy of the reports regarding my work. It would be negligent of me not to do so. The recent John Seigenthaler incident (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4534712.stm) is warning enough for any prudent person to ensure that inaccuracies (as well as malicious attacks) do not survive on Wiki pages. To that end, rest assured that I will keep a watchful eye on the Afshar experiment page and its contents, given it survives your mysteriously sudden deletion request! Please note that I have not voted here, but simply been forced to respond to criticism, which frankly belongs to the discussion page rather than here! BTW/ my paper is stil under peer-review... Prof. Afshar 23:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Prof Afshar, Please note that in fact you did vote on this very AfD! Your vote was the third vote recorded on this page, and occurred only hours ago! linas 22:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

While we are on the topic of sockpuppetry, there is also some voting irregularity coming from anonymous User:209.6.174.28, who voted to keep, and then, minutes later, retracted that vote. I note that this user's only editing interests have been the promotion of Afshar's researches, which perhaps is not a surprise, as this user has signed posts in the past, identifying themselves as Prof Shahriar S. Afshar. I don't like these kinds of shenanigans, and view this episode with some consternation. linas 23:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Linas, the IP you mentioned belongs to the colleague User:Physicsmonk with whom I worked and used his computer last year before I had set up my own Wiki account. After my recent discussions with you I asked him to obtain an account as well, which is exactly what he has done. He retracted the anonymous vote after he realized I had posted his vote for him (see below for the reason). Please stop these unsubstantiated remarks. Frankly, I am starting to think that Hunter Monroe is in fact your sockpuppet?! Afshar 23:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Linas, I had responded to your empty accusation in my talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Afshar). It may be a good idea to move these comments to the discussion page to keep the voting process here instead of talking to each other. [User:Afshar|Afshar]] 22:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Since you seem to have missed my previous response, here it is:

• Dear Linas, You can't call anyone who supports my work a sockpuppet! User:Physicsmonkis certainly not a sockpuppet either, he is the Boston colleague I mentioned in my e-mail. I asked him to set up an account as you had suggested. He told me about the recent events with Monroe requesting a deletion and then you reinstating Monroe's attempt which I mistakenly understood as your own view. Sorry if I got confused on your vote! At any rate, User:Physicsmonk told me that for some reason he could not post his vote on the Wiki deletion page, which is what I did for him by copying and pasting his response to User:Hmonroe into the vote page. As you can see, I have not voted on the deletion issue myself as I deem that not to be ethical. I hope this clarifies the situation. BTW/ I have posted the e-mail I sent you a few days agao but was left unanswered in your talk page. Afshar 21:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't imagine why they couldn't vote directly, since it seems that thier very first edit on WP was to remove this AfD notice. linas 23:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Point of order. As a minimum of verifiability it seems that any valid vote must be posted from the account that signs it. I can't see how anyone could think otherwise, events in Florida notwithstanding. Thus I say the third vote from the top, signed by physicsmonk but posted by Afshar be struck out (not obliterated) and physicsmonk be allowed to cast a vote from his/her own account. (Then the argument may continue, as desired.) GangofOne 00:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you GangofOne! Please explain what I need to do to clear this sorry mess! Physicsmonk 21:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep based on comments from smart editors above. -- JJay 22:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is not original research in the WP sense. It is a real controversy in the real world which has generated a rather extensive paper trail. Keeping it does not imply endorsing it, any more than the articles on creationism or cold fusion endorse the topics. Documenting recent disputes like this is an important way WP is valuable. Of course, it remains important that the article be NPOV, and that it not be given too much prominence in other parts of the WP, e.g. the Albert Einstein article, with which it is only very tangentially related. --Macrakis 23:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 02:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  Comment: This is not a speedy keep. Speedy keeps can only happen if the nominator withdraws the vote to delete and there have been no delete votes so far, or the nomination was in bad faith. Stifle 21:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but it will be necessary to monitor this page closely owing to its peculiar history. I suggest strong disclaimers to alert the casual reader that Afshar's work cannot be considered established science. The many Speedy Keeps visible on this page are consistent with claims of sockpuppets. WP:Guide to deletion says "Speedy keep is rarely used. It implies that the user thinks the nomination was based on an obvious misunderstanding and that the deletion discussion can be closed early." Earlier versions of this page could easily be construed as original research, so deletion is at least a option worth thinking about. Dave Kielpinski 05:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I think it would be completely against the spirit of science to even consider this article for deletion. Though there hasn't been much news on it, has this experiment not been repeated twice? If there are problems with the scientific establishment so deep that something challenging established ideas is censured(this isn't the only instance) let's hope wikipedia can at least be more open minded. A better suggestion: delete the article on string theory, at least there is an "afshar experiment." If the experiment were held to the same standards as string speculation then it would be infinitely superior. -- Anon —the preceding unsigned comment is by 63.254.142.215 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, with strong misgivings. This kind of page can be seriously misleading. In particular, the current page tends to give the impression that the results of this experiment are important - in fact, the results are exactly what anyone would have predicted. The only question is whether Afshar's interpretation of the experiment is compatible with his or others' understandings of the idea of complementarity. --Reuben 17:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• I would also recommend that the article be reduced substantially in length, unless Afshar himself can be persuaded to distance himself from it. The current article is tied far too strongly to his point of view. --Reuben 18:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have no problem with the article size reduction, but have every problem with not being able to at least clarify what I have done, or why. It would be charlatanism to ascribe to me what I have not claimed, without a recourse to correct the allegation. After all, if the experiment carries my name, I should be able to explain what it is, or correct mistakes others make in describing its content and my claims. I will avoid directly editing the page given I can communicate my corrections and updates to a responsible, and unbiased editor who would then objectively update the article. I do not see how it could be done otherwise. BTW there is a Crossed beam version of the experiment that is much easier to understand without the need to go into Fourier optics. Anybody who wishes to add that version please contact me in my user talk page. -- Prof. Afshar 18:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think the professor and wikipedia would be best served if his involvement were only on the talk page of the article. Perhaps he could keep a website posting information and answers to disputes brought up here, and he could link the talk page to them -- Anon —the preceding unsigned comment is by 63.254.142.215 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep clearly. However we do need to handle this carefully. DJ Clayworth 14:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep this is a good article.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 04:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete per all the sockpuppets and new users voting. Stifle 21:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - but I strongly endorse the misgivings of Reuben. The dynamics of someone contributing directly to an article about their own work are as described in Wikipedia:Autobiography: even with the best of intentions, it's hard to ensure NPOV. Tearlach 03:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - but strongly needs a re-write as it uses complicated terms. --Kilo-Lima 19:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- even after it's proved wrong :) GangofOne 23:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Now is there an admin around to close this vote? It's been here 8 days or so.

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.