Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scale relativity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. MBisanz talk 20:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scale relativity[edit]
- Scale relativity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable, fringe theory that has not received notice from outside sources and so therefore does not belong in Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable fringe theory. Verbal chat 13:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No non-trivial independent reliable coverage from the science press, and even less from the physics community. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's a well presented theory. I see no reason for deletion if some coverage is shown. SydLyra (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Indeed if some coverage were shown it would be a keep. But none has been shown or can be found by those looking into this subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nottale's theory has been around for a while, it is still resulting in published papers (here for example is an updated list:[1]) and it is therefore living proof that scientific thinking isn't completely blinkered by orthodoxy.Lucretius (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The Wikipedia article does not have a proper discussion on the Lorentzian form, and the Gallilean form is trivial. The references in the article do not convince me that this is any more than a fringe theory. QuantumCyclops (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has received enough attention from sources other than the originator "scale relativity" -author:nottale gives 578 gscholar hits. "scale relativity" gives 666 ghits, "Laurent Nottale" 184 ghits with citation numbers 254, 201, 107 ... that would usually result in keep. Fringiness is besides the point at AfD, what matters is notice by independent sources.John Z (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Lucretius and John Z. Indeed, WP:FRINGE is primarily a complement to WP:NPOV. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a fringe theory, but it's a notable fringe theory. Qwfp (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm no scholor on these types of things, but in terms of structure the article is detailed and it isn't clearly something we don't specifically want to see on Wikipedia. I'd have suggested a weak oppose due to lack of refs, and the article could certainly benefit from relevant referencing, but as it's been indicated there are papers published on it so these can be incorporated. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, No comments. Denis Tarasov (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This fringe theory appears to be notable. I am not going to argue that this theory is right or wrong, but only want to note that Nottale sometimes manages to publish articles in respectable journals and has his own circle of admires among physicists. Ruslik (talk) 12:55, 18 November 2008 (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.