Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Einstein - Hopf Drag


 * 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The result was Keep nom withdrawn, concerns addressed. Current version is significantly improved from that which was nominated. Pastordavid (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Einstein - Hopf Drag

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete there may be something salvageable here, but in its current state it lacks context, notability, verifiability and yes it drops big names but that's not an exception to our inclusion criteria. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination, as something was salvaged here. I cannot close it as there are other delete voices but perhaps the next passing admin could? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete hoax, no? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - lacks content. Macy's123 (review me) 03:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  13:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand thanks to Uncle G's improvements. the wub "?!"  13:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY and Uncle G's improvements. It's a good stub, now, and will likely expand. I particularly enjoy the term "Kerrzappp!", and plan to use it at least twice today. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has been entirely re-written since nomination, and now contains more-than-adequate references.  Tevildo (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability and verifiability have been demonstrated. Terraxos (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Still needs a bit of fine-tuning to demonstrate its relevance outside the private theories of Bernard Haisch, or worse Thomas E. Bearden. Using Google Scholar you can observe the pattern, that a very small group of authors only write the modern articles on this (except teh acoustic ones) and those articles will only be ever cited by those group again. But that would only imply carefill selection of sources and external links, not deletion. At least I'd prefer to let this run the normal time span. --Pjacobi (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2008 (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.