Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De Sitter relativity

de Sitter relativity

This doesn't appear to be notable. Chasing citations from the papers/preprints mentioned in the references, I found no independent critical review of this work. Most of the citations were from other papers by the same group of de Sitter relativity proponents. The few exceptions mentioned the papers only in passing in a survey of related work, or (in one case) in support of a true but trivial statement about the infinite-curvature limit of de Sitter space which isn't central to the papers' main claims.

I should probably add that the papers appear to me to be nonsense; the authors don't seem to understand special relativity or cosmology. I'd expect any well-known cosmologist who did review the papers to reach the same conclusion. This puts Wikipedia in an impossible situation if the article is kept—pointing out flaws in the paper would be original research or synthesis, but not pointing them out (as our article currently doesn't) creates the impression of a scientific consensus that doesn't exist. I think that the notability requirement exists to protect us from just this kind of situation, and so the article ought to be deleted as non-notable. -- BenRG (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google Scholar ; Google Search ; Google Books ; 76.66.195.63 (talk) 06:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as I recall from those 100th anniversary things for the Annus Mirabilis, de Sitter relativity is an adaptation of special relativity to make it usable in accelerating frames of reference, and was introduced before Einstein developed general relativity. So this would be a very old theory... 76.66.195.63 (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the theory is basically nonsensical in that anybody ever having done FRW cosmology and studied the deSitter solution knows that this doesn't really require any modification to GR. But unfortunately, that is no reason for deletion.

However, the theory has little to no notability which might be reason for deletion.

If the article is kept, it needs a major rework, because currently it has major NPOV issues; it reads like an infomercial for the theory. (TimothyRias (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]