Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RNS string theory


 * 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. (WP:SNOW). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 01:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

RNS string theory

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Full of unreliable sources and unsourced content. ReferencesAreImportant (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy close, Wikipedia should clearly have an article with this title. The current version may be problematic but AfD is not for cleanup.— S Marshall  T/C 11:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy close as KEEP. Article frivolously nominated for deletion by suspected (and reported) sock of indefinitely blocked User:PsiEpsilon, who has previously targeted the article multiple times through a number of different confirmed socks, including User:Dimension10. The AfD-tags on the article were added by the suspected sock IP 219.90.100.145 while the AfD-entry was created by User:ReferencesAreImportant. Thomas.W   talk to me  11:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Seem plenty of reliable in-depth sources e.g. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep RNS string gets 153 hits in GScholar and RNS superstring gets 130 hits; 131 and 97 hits, respectively, in GBooks. This is a known concept in string theory and was important at the start of the string theory revolution. There are ample peer-reviewed papers (Colapeninsula quotes three above) and books to satisfy notability thresholds, per WP:GNG. With regard to this and some other string theory articles, there is some controversy over the sourcing. Some claim that introductory materials like String theory DeMystified aren't suitable as reliable sources for this material. They have a point, but improving the article through better sourcing is a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, so is not a reason for deletion. A notable topic and surmountable problems with the article suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - important concept in physics and, as indicated above, many heavyweight sources are available. Easily meets WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2013 (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.