Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything

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 Yikes, Keep by means of WP:SNOW! Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything

Delete a physics paper submitted last week, covered in all the sites the pick up all papers submitted - much like lots of sites that pick up every company's press releases - but no reliable sources independent of the paper itself for what's in it why it matters, etc. which is perhaps less a sin because the article doesn't have any of that either.Carlossuarez46 18:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC) keep!!! waah! =D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.132.110 (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is cover in the New Scientist and Daily Telegraph. JohnCD 19:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I found the article because of news coverage. Thue | talk 19:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Big enough in the press right now to warrant an article. Hopefully a few people will use this article to help interpret the subject for those of us who don't follow physics that closely. --StuffOfInterest 19:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being covered by quite a few reputable sources of scientific information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberiko (talk • contribs) 19:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of media and scientific interest (eg. here Martin Hinks 19:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a typical stub article with proper references and a claim of notability. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a pretty notable claim. This isn't some quack's theory. Based on the press, it seems like the real deal. However, even if this later goes on to be disproven, the theory is notable enough on it's own, I think, due to its unique author and the E8 connection. Shnakepup 20:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable. This is the real deal. Needs more links to and from the other relevant articles and categories in this subject though. Time to remove the tag for deletion on the page? Oldsoul 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't obscure or fancruft, and if we can have pages about various string theories that make virtually untestable predictions, I think it's not too much to ask to have a small page about a theory which, while probably wrong (according to the author), is at least testable in the near term and intellectually interesting. - JustinWick 20:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's gotten a lot of coverage and made the Telegraph on November 14.—Lividfiction 21:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a hot topic that's being posted on everything from NFL to political message boards and is creating a lot of excitement. While unproven, it is a serious scientific theory that requires more background knowledge for most laymen. This seems to be exactly what Wikipedia was created for. OntheRoad 16:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.23.5.73 (talk) [reply]
Keep - Dealing as it does with the elusive solution to the unification problem, this paper does seem to hold a more than usual measure of interest. --IslandGyrl 21:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberiko (talk • contribs) 19:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of media and scientific interest (eg. here Martin Hinks 19:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a typical stub article with proper references and a claim of notability. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a pretty notable claim. This isn't some quack's theory. Based on the press, it seems like the real deal. However, even if this later goes on to be disproven, the theory is notable enough on it's own, I think, due to its unique author and the E8 connection. Shnakepup 20:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable. This is the real deal. Needs more links to and from the other relevant articles and categories in this subject though. Time to remove the tag for deletion on the page? Oldsoul 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't obscure or fancruft, and if we can have pages about various string theories that make virtually untestable predictions, I think it's not too much to ask to have a small page about a theory which, while probably wrong (according to the author), is at least testable in the near term and intellectually interesting. - JustinWick 20:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's gotten a lot of coverage and made the Telegraph on November 14.—Lividfiction 21:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a hot topic that's being posted on everything from NFL to political message boards and is creating a lot of excitement. While unproven, it is a serious scientific theory that requires more background knowledge for most laymen. This seems to be exactly what Wikipedia was created for. OntheRoad 16:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.23.5.73 (talk) [reply]
Keep - I also found this article because of news coverage. Although, it should be noted that the article contents need to be updated as some sections appear to be copied verbatim from the actual actual paper that Lisi submitted. 203.109.151.60 22:00, 15 November 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.