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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary relativity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Not notable, unreliable sources, original research, fringe science. CodeTheorist (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Snow delete - not notable (has made zero impact on the scientific community), based on a single unreliable source (an obscure, poorly regarded journal), contains original research, is fringe science, is most likely wrong, the article may have been created by the author of the paper (possible conflict of interest) and the article also contains text copy-and-pasted from that paper. I had a quick look at the paper and wasn't very impressed; if it were true then the following theories would need to be heavily modified or scrapped: special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics, QED, QCD, the conservation of energy etc. CodeTheorist (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A theory advanced by one person that's never been cited or picked up on. The term throws up some Google Books and Scholar results, but only fleeting mentions and in a totally different context. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG since there isn't enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the imaginary relativity subject for a stand-alone article. Also, Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Perhaps post the content one of our sister projects, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, and Wikiversity. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. New article by one person with only one relevant reference as a source, written by him. Not notable, conflict of interest, delete is the remedy. --DThomsen8 (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, OR, but mostly utter nonsense which flies in the face of relativity, perhaps the most understood and confirmed branch of modern physics.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG. AstroCog (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hmmm... How to put this as gently as possible?... Why do math and physics attract so many crazy people? EEng (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because this is not a stand alone subject derived from reliable sources and is therefore not notable. Also this appears to be fringe science and is not notable in that area either. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2012 (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.