Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anomalon

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. John254 00:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anomalon[edit]

No notice anywhere except at William Corliss's unreliable source website. Simply not a notable fringe theory, sorry. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ScienceApologist didn't bother to look for it. [1][2] 71.194.184.182 (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The IP's GoogleScholar and GoogleBooks search results show that the term has indeed been in substantial use in physics and there is significant coverage by reliable sources, albeit most of it apparently negative, e.g. this article in Physical Review Letters[3]. It is clear in view of these results that the topic is notable in the sense of WP:N. The article requires clean-up for balance and addition of sources, but not deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 71.194.184.182 and NSK My goodness. 94 Google books hits noted above. I see 280 Google Scholar hits. This looks like significant coverage to me. Perhaps all this info could be incorporated into the article to give it balance, thorough coverage. pro's and con's. fringe theory vs breakthrough. that sort of thing. Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

make it a strong per Nealparr. What's good enough for paper is good enough for not paper. Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Encarta, which deems it notable enough to have an article on it.[4] --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 6 August 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.