Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relativistic Newtonian dynamics

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relativistic Newtonian dynamics[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article written by YaakovJoseph to promote the work of Yaakov Friedman and Joseph Steiner. Only uses WP:PRIMARY sources, which were published in the borderline journal Europhysics Letters. I don't think there exists any secondary sources, the main article [1] has been cited a grand total of 2 times by people other than the authors. Also, all the arXiv pre-prints are in the "gen-ph" section, reserved for crackpots. Tercer (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Barely cited in any publications not by the inventors themselves, and then in passing mentions within papers that are rather marginal themselves. I'm not even sure they know that the work is supposed to be an alternative to general relativity. One of them says: The discrepancy ... is considered to originate in general relativity, and is the subject of many different calculations, which obtain similar values (e.g, Friedman and Steiner, 2016). Another is similar: all of [general relativity's] predictions have been tested and verified in different limits [2]. In the weak field approximation, observations like the precise measurement of the perihelion advance of Mercury [citation here to Friedman and Steiner] ... show an impeccable agreement with the observations at solar system length scales. That's amazingly superficial, almost like the authors of the later papers Googled for something recent about the Mercury's perihelion precession and just stuck in whatever they found. No in-depth coverage in secondary sources means no wiki-notability. There's nothing to say, and no reason to try saying anything. XOR'easter (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not at all notable fringe stuff. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG, with coverage limited to a few poorly-cited articles from the creators of the topic. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW - never in 20 years have we ever published original research, and everybody knows that by now. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2021 (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.