Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory

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The result was keep; nomination withdrawn with no opposition (NAC). Ish dar ian 23:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory

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

As the article itself states, Nobel laureate Gerard t'Hooft pointed out that "activities in the subject 'have remained limited to personal web pages and are absent from the standard electronic archives, while no reference to ECE theory can be spotted in any of the peer reviewed scientific journals.'" So it's still in Wikipedia why? -Jordgette [talk] 23:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Originally there was a long article on Myron Evans. It was created before BLP policy had been properly formulated on WP. It was deleted after OTRS received complaints from Evans. There had also been some problematic edits to that article by users connected with Evans. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myron Evans (2nd nomination) This stub is what survives. Evans' theory has not been accepted but has gained some notoriety. That involves in particular the editorial written about the "theory" when the editorial board of the journal changed. They had published several papers by Evans and others, prior to that change. The article is clearly labelled as a pseudoscientific theory or "fringe science". Three of Evans' self-published books on this theory are or have been on sale on amazon.com. This article gives information on the topic not easily available elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mathsci, and because notability is not temporary. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'Problematic edits' seems to be an understatement; a 2008 study found that by one measure, the former M.E. article was the most controversial article on Wikipedia. And apparently Dr. Evans was none too pleased about this article either. Regarding the current article, if the critics' peer-reviewed papers regarding ECE can be considered as secondary reliable sources about the theory, then the refs from the article show that it passes WP:GNG. The article itself could use some development. But that is a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A topic passing WP:GNG and surmountable problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 00:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I withdraw the nomination. I checked the talk page but didn't realize there was a long history there. -Jordgette [talk] 04:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Mathsci. The article is clear and upfront about the topic's questionable status and the theory has received some notice in the past. There is no attempt here to disguise fringe as mainstream as often happens. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2013 (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.