Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ritz's Equation


 * 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 – clear consensus and withdrawal request. (non-admin closure) Laurdecl talk 08:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Ritz's Equation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A fringe theory, at odds with the science of the time, never mind our modern understanding. Relies primarily on first party sources, no evidence it was taken up by anyone or achieved the sort of wider notoriety required for fringe theories. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 22:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and perhaps rename "Ritz ballistic theory" as it was known in its time. Historical theories that fail are not "fringe science". There are secondary sources. As Arthur W. Conway said in his forward to A. O'Rahilly, Electromagnetics, 1938" Not everyone will agree with the author's estimate of Ritz; but everyone will agree with the elegance of his electrodynamic formula. Everything that Ritz has written in his short life is worth study, and the author deserves credit for bringing to light again his formulae. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. It looks like a genuine theory, and is sourced. It doesn't matter if the theory was disproved or hasn't found favor or whatever. -- do  ncr  am  18:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep — This is an important topic in the history of physics. Physicists still discuss it, why it's wrong, what it means, and so on. See e.g. Ritz is Wrong by Wesley from 2003, and look at this scholar search to see why an entry for this wrong theory is nevertheless essential for our encyclopedia.  Agree with  about rename. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am persuaded especially by the scholar search. Obviously needs renaming per above, sourcing and cleaning up so it’s not just a wall of maths, but is notable and I withdraw my nomination.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 23:28, 6 February 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.