Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superbradyon

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 merge to Lorentz covariance#Lorentz violation. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Superbradyon

Superbradyon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable topic. All references are from single author, and all citations of these references are by the same author. No other mention in the literature that I could find. Mjamja (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Tough call, but I'm gonna go with Keep. The article is poorly sourced, but a Google search turns up some interesting results. Hypothetical physics is pretty heady stuff, especially when you get into things like this that can't be proven or refuted with our current technology, but this doesn't look like fringe theory to me, and I'd hate to delete it only to find out this guy is the next Copernicus. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Every google link I saw was either a simple definition (most likely derived from wikipedia in the first place) or cited Gonzalez-Mestres. Did you find anything else? Mjamja (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Based on the citations given in arXiv, none of this articles have been cited more than half a dozen times. We dont have to judgethe physics, just whether physicists think its notable or not, and they apparently do not. DGG (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Lorentz covariance#Lorentz violation. Gonzalez-Mestres isn't a crackpot, he's notable (in the academic sense, perhaps not in the WP sense) in the field of cosmic-ray tests of spacetime symmetries. The basic idea is not new---in a Lorentz-violating theory, different particles might have different limiting speeds---but "superbradyon" looks like a neologism unique to this author. Note that none of the publications on it are peer-reviewed, but rather are a collection of uncited and unreviewed conference proceedings and e-prints. No prejudice against recreation if there's more general interest---maybe the Pierre Auger result will trigger some. Bm gub (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Changing vote to Merge per the above discussion. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge: per BM.  RGTraynor  16:58, 9 May 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.