Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-relativity


 * 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-relativity
See also the talk page and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics.

Writing an article about reception of the theory of relativity and its opponents (besides those handled already in our article Deutsche Physik), perhaps taking de:Kritik an der Relativitätstheorie as a starting point, would benefit from starting with a blank sheet.

Pjacobi 08:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is a large article, with a number of active editors who seem from the talk page not to get on terribly well. I don't know the subject well enough to assess the content, but wouldn't an RfC to get the attention of more physicists be more appropriate than Afd? --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  10:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This has already been brought to the attention of physicists on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. The issue is that there is one very obnoxious person, with a poor understanding of Wikipedia, who is using the article as a springboard for his (apparent) original research; the rest of us have been toying with fixing it (with massive rewrites), but there's not enough there to make it worth it. -- SCZenz 14:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete : refers to activities of scientists not satisfied with the present state of the art of modern theory of relativity.
 * Are any scientists satisfied with the present state of modern relativity? I can't think of anyone who wouldn't be much happier if it could be replaced with a consistent theory of gravity at the quantum level.  And what the hell does Essien's religion have to do with it.  I don't like the idea of focusing on self-styled "dissidents".  It doesn't sound like good science to state your point of view, and then do the experiments. Oh, and the article is POV, badly written, rambling, has a tone that smacks of original research and doesn't seem to serve any great purpose that isn't covered in the better article.  General relativity.  -- GWO


 * Delete per nom. Merge usable bits into General relativity. -- SCZenz 14:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That looks like it is for real theories, not crackpots. We probably would need to add another section to talk about the crackpots and their claims. --Philosophus 15:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Or a new article with a clearer title, something like Opposition to the Theory of Relativity. -- SCZenz 19:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete : Article is rambling rant with quite a bit of original research. In points it can become quite offensive, like apparently implying that researchers at DESY murdered someone for some cabalistic reason (if I were involved with DESY I would probably be ask for WP:OFFICE to be applied here). And of course, we have the editor who constantly adds these things to it. From previous experiences with such issues, it seems that deleting the articles can be an effective method of getting these editors to stop. I am not even sure how notable the topic really is (outside of sci.physics, of course). Although a google test might give a large number of results, crackpots often manipulate these results. --Philosophus 15:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Despite attempts to clean it up, it's fundamentally still an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. A clean slate at a more appropriate name would be better than this.  &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 16:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Craig Stuntz 17:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Either Delete with Merging what can be salvaged or (following Squiddy), RfC (and perhaps a change of name) - just as we already have "history of relativity" etc. Harald88 22:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, I'm not sure there's anything to merge here, but merge it if there is. But I skimmed it and I can't say that there's any content here at all.  And at the very least any such information should be at an article entitled Criticisms of the theory of relativity.  But this is just a bunch of rambling junk. --Deville (Talk) 23:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Although a potentially interesting topic, all of the interesting stuff is presented as hearsay, and it appears unsalvegable. NB User:KraMuc appears to be the source of the drivel, added during a three month campaign. Another possibility is to revert to the version of 18 January when it was an ugly but bearable stub. linas 05:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: my experience with similar situations suggests that trying to educate User:Kracmuc (apparently aka various anons from Germany) in wikiculture and wikiskills, much less trying to reason with him regarding the issue of creating a balanced and WP:NPOV article on anti-relativity cranks, would be way more trouble than it's worth to any of us, and is unlikely to ultimately result in any resolution which serves our readers well. ---CH 05:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: POV pushed rubbish of no value. --DV8 2XL 15:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: The topic has some interest, but mostly from a psychiatric standpoint. There's an inherent problem trying to present only material from reputable sources when the subject is, by its nature, mainly to be found in unreputable sources. Without the guide of reputable sources to govern content, it becomes a free-for-all. Wikipedia is not a good place topics like this.ELQ22 22:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.