Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmeli's cosmological 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 was DELETE, however weakly. postdlf (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Carmeli's cosmological relativity

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:FRINGE. Describes a one-author theory with virtually no citations in the mainstream literature. Bm gub (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Bm gub (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - not entirely non-notable, see . Bearian (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per Bearian's evidence. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me comment on that.  I did a search like this before AfD'ing.  Note that several of these are well-known fringe/crackpot journals (Foundations of Physics Letters), and several more are unpublished ArXiV preprints or unrefereed conference talks (see Reliable_source_examples).  The only one with any claim to be a mainstream refereed journal is Int. J. Theor. Phys., and that one has attracted citations only from Carmeli himself and his coauthors---and the citations are nowhere except, again, the ArXiV, Foundations of Physics again, "Creation" (!!), and ITJP again.  If this were a notable theory, you'd be seeing citations from review articles, observers, etc., in journals like ApJ. Bm gub (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear, too: the theory is pure junk science, but it has gotten some press, just not enough to pass WP:FRINGE. This is a borderline case. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2011 (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.