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. - Mailer Diablo 12:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Postulates of special relativity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Subject of this article is best addressed in Special Relativity. The minimal additional content of this article doesn't seem worth a merge. Gnixon 05:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please consider a redirect to Special relativity#Postulates. Tizio 11:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to Special relativity#Postulates. There is more than enough room in the special relativity artice to discuss the postulates in detail. Count Iblis 12:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - It provides a place to discuss alternate formulations of these postulates. It makes no sense to either burden to the special relativity article with the material being covered here, or leave the issues being raised here uncovered. --EMS | Talk 18:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Both this page and Consequences of special relativity contain lengthy mathematical descriptions that would cause special relativity to be excessively long if included there. --Christopher Thomas 19:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems to be a useful fork. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above.Biophys 03:24, 20 April 2007 (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.