Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure)  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  12:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Page fails notability guidelines. Evans and his small number of AIAS followers are the only ones who write about this theory. There is no third party interest. No third parties cite the theory in a positive manner. There are no independent sources on the theory. Physics Dafydd (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - on the contrary, it passes GNG rather easily. Leaving aside the fact that Evans published his papers in a reputable journal whose reviewers believed at the time that the theory was viable, or in the journal's Aims and Scope's terms that the papers were "high quality contributions judged relevant and interesting by the referees and the editors", the theory was critiqued in multiple reliable sources cited in the article, and shown to be mistaken. That makes the affair a matter of encyclopedic interest. Science is not limited to theories later proven correct. The article could certainly be better written, but that's not an AfD matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep.  clearly explained in the first AfD why this is a notable topic and warrants an article.  Notability is not temporary, and a discredited theory can often be a continuing matter of encyclopedic interest. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep.  Page easily passes WP:GNG, even if the current content has not yet been fleshed out. There are currently 5 sources in the page listed under "criticism" that give independent (not written by ECE propenents), significant (i.e ECE is the main subject matter of the source, with coverage sustained over a number of years) and reliable coverage (appearing in peer-reviewed journals inc. one written by a Nobel laureate). There is no requirement there must be sources covering the subject in a "positive manner".--Sparkyscience (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep.  I still have not seen conclusive evidence that Evans is receiving a Civil List Pension to support him in his endeavours, but if this is so, then the State looks as kindly on this particular delusion as it does on other corrosive articles of faith. And that makes it notable. Deplorable, yes, academically worse than useless, yes, but nonetheless notable.137.205.100.47 (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – If anything, it ought to be expanded, so that it at least summarizes the mathematical specifics of how it was demonstrated to fail (e.g., failure of Lorentz invariance). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing has changed since the last AfD. 't Hooft is notable, so his statements about the topic are significant. The stub serves a useful informative function, including as a cautionary tale. Mathsci (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2017 (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.