Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of relativity

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 Snow Keep - I really can't imagine an article about such a well-known scientific topic being deleted (non-admin closure). Super Mario Man 23:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of relativity

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be no longer valid. Herp Derp (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep— i won't bother to argue notability; this is the actual theory of relativity nominator wants to delete. nominator seems to be trying to make some kind of point about neutrinos. see e.g. this diff (esp the last part of it). — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I've heard rumors the topic may be notable, at least for historical reasons. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
snow keep not a valid reason to delete. Heck, even if relativity were disproved it would still be notable, probably more so. But no, it's not been disproved, just some Italians got overexcited and leaked news of some dubious results.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per fucking duh. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
snow keep per Headbomb. Sailsbystars (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? It's 22 September, not 1 April. Come back when you've succeeded in getting Geocentric model deleted at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Silly. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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.