Talk:Doubly-special relativity/VfD-2004-June-10

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

VfD 10 June 2004

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Keep

Record of deletion debate:

Original research. Article even states it is not accepted in the scientific community. Google returns 869 hits, including Wikipedia mirrors. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 03:35, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Haha. Delete. Maybe BJAODN? Johnleemk | Talk 09:39, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I should add that the reason for my vote was the few Google hits this article got - only a few hundred at the most. Upon closer examination about half of them are Wikipedia mirrors. The theory is mentioned on a few university/college pages, though. I'm withdrawing my vote, but not adding a new vote.
• Keep. Good short article (more than a stub), fascinating topic. Article states that it's not taken seriously by most of the HE physics community, but at worst this puts it into category 5 (adhered to by a limited group) of alternative, speculative and disputed theories. Certainly, original research should not be published on Wikipedia, but sufficiently notable minority theories should be described if we have contributors willing to do the work. By an anon who is possibly the theory's author, but even if so he's done a remarkably good job on NPOV. Andrewa 20:54, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. There is a common problem with non-scientific readers who misunderstand the distinction between "not serious science" and "not taken seriously". The theory if valid scientific speculation. As such (speculation) is valid science and accepted in the community. It is not considered a promising theory and therefore not take seriously by most theoretical physicists, but that doesn't mean its bad science.
  • Comment: That vote by Roeschter doesn't strictly count as it's unsigned. Please sign all posts to VfD, even if you are not voting and even if you have no username as yet. Signatures are a great help in keeping track of which comments are from contributors, and which are from the other sort of editor. Andrewa 01:24, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, just barely, mostly because the article in its present form, with the paragraph "Annotation for non-physicist readers" is so crystal-clear in identifying the status of the theory. That paragraph, for me, saves the article. Dpbsmith 01:39, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Thank you, Roeschter, for the clarifying paragraph. I now agree this article should stay. Keep. SWAdair | Talk 05:56, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

RESULT: Consensus to keep.

DJ Clayworth 17:22, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.