Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time is grainy


 * 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. —  Aitias  // discussion 17:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Time is grainy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable fringe theory, WP:SOAP might be relevant here. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into Space-time. The single source given in the article might be useful there, even if none of the text is salvageable. I'd hang on to the resulting redirect as it seems like a plausible search term. Reyk  YO!  23:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to 'Space-time#Quantized spacetime'. I don't think this theory is new, or in any way distinct from that old argument. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article as it stands lacks suitable references, and the final sentence practically screams WP:HOAX.  Although quantized spacetime is a legitimate theory, "Time is grainy" is not.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 04:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There isn't even any real information in the article.  It only briefly mentions the history of theory with no explanation of it.  Not what I would call quality Wikipedia stuff.  Swiftek (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and do not merge. It is not clear that the astrophysicist mentioned, Richard Lieu, actually proposes spacetime graininess in the publication mentioned ("The effect of Planck-scale spacetime fluctuations on Lorentz invariance at extreme speeds". Richard Lieu, The Astrophysical Journal Letters. Volume 568, issue 2, pages L67–L70, April 2002). What he does is point out an effect that must be manifest if quantum spacetime is real. There is no evidence of the claim in the article that that the concept of quantized spacetime "gained a wider appreciation" by this publication: the title of the publication has 7 Google hits only, and no citations are found using Google scholar so it has not been widely cited. In a later article the same author argues against the existence of such Planck-scale spacetime fluctuations, at least to first order ("The phase coherence of light from extragalactic sources: direct evidence against first-order Planck-scale fluctuations in time and space". Richard Lieu and Lloyd W. Hillman, The Astrophysical Journal Letters. Volume 585, issue 2, pages L77–L80, March 2003). The article title is imho not a plausible search term. 88.234.1.171 (talk) 14:40, 28 December 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.