Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Block Theory of the Universe


 * 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 redirect to Eternalism (philosophy of time). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Block Theory of the Universe

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Clearly not famous enough to be talked about. May b an obsolete theory, but I can find no evidence that this ever was Moglex 20:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The only reliable source using this phrase I can locate is this one, and the extent of its reference to this subject is the following text:
 * Several arguments have been based on the Special Theory to support a "block" theory of the universe, and hence tenseless time as an analogue to tenseless space. Minkowski spacetime has encouraged people to think of time as the fourth dimension, on a par with the three dimension of space. But Minkowski spacetime is not a simple four-dimensional space with four dimensions: rather, it is one which has 3 + 1 dimensions with a Lorentz signature that sharply distinguishes time-like separations from space-like ones.
 * Based on this use, perhaps a redirect to Minkowski space would be appropriate? JulesH 11:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  13:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * delete. No evidence this was ever a theory propounded by an actual scientist. Argyriou (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * redirect to Eternalism (philosophy of time), which appears to be a more throrough discussion of the same topic. (I make on judgement on whether that Eternalism article is appropriate to Wikipedia or not, however.) --EMS | Talk 21:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  E LIMINATOR JR  00:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Eternalism per Ems above. The topic is the same, and the article under discussion is a duplicate. Shalom Hello 01:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Many years of physics education later, I've still never encounter this concept. Wouldn't surprise me if this were a hoax, though it could just be a non-notable theory raised one time in the past. If one can give a good sourced reason, redirect would be fine too. KTC 03:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions.   —KTC 05:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep just because it's descredited doesn't mean it's not-notable. --PEAR (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem is there's no verifiable source to show it is notable. With no source, one can't even say it was discredited, as for all one know, it's a hoax. KTC 11:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment makes sense. --PEAR (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - To closing editor - Kindly note that there is no debate over whether this article is to be kept (as noone wants that). The issue instead is how to dispose of it.  BTW - I am not at all sure that Eternalism (philosophy of time) should not be AfD-ed itself, but as long as that article exists it is reasonable for this one to redirect to it.  (The big reason for other editors to call foe deletion is that they have not heard of eternalism either.  Then again, before I researched this AfD I had not heard of it either.) --EMS | Talk 22:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect Makes sense to keep the redirect in case anyone else should look. DGG (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * redirect to Eternalism (philosophy of time) per EMS. We can discuss another time whether to keep Eternalism (philosophy of time) itself. Dan Gluck 07:04, 10 August 2007 (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.