Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronological censorship


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Chronological censorship

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The subject of the article fails the general notability guideline. There are no Google scholar hits nor Google books hits, and there are only seven Google hits: three of which are Wikipedia, and the remaining are apparently not relevant to the subject of the article. Furthermore, there is a likely WP:COI involved since the editor who created the article is and the author of the only paper on so-called "chronological censorship" is named Hunter Monroe. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The term was in general usage among specialists prior to the mention in my paper. One example on the Internet is here: http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2005/07/index.html. A very similar concept is "causal censorship" for instance here http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~mapdw/chapter-fin.pdf. This is not the same as cosmic censorship or chronology protection. Feel free to drop the reference to my paper. Hunter Monroe


 * Neither concept seems notable as would pass our general guidelines, at least not based on these references (a blog posting and passing mention in a published source). There is perhaps a case to be made for merging into chronology protection, since both notions appear subsidiary to that original idea.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Merging is OK with me. I will stay out of it given COI issue raised. Hunter Monroe


 * Comment. "chronological censorship" gets about 3 Google hits, while "chronology protection" gets 34,200. If they are the same thing, this would hint at a rename at the least. (There is also a Wikipedia article Chronology protection conjecture, although that discusses a particular theory by Hawking and so is not the same as this article. There is also an article Cosmic censorship hypothesis. All this is way above my pay grade so I'm not going to vote.) Herostratus (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article chronological censorship is explicitly different from Hawking's conjecture on the lack of closed timelike geodesics, although the two are related. The former does not automatically become notable because of the latter.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not sure how closely related this concept is to the two similar-sounding articles, so I will not recommend merger or a redirect, but the particular term itself does not appear to satisfy general notability as a neologism. Edison (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of notability, per Herostratus. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2010 (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.