Deletion of Introduction to special relativity

Comment: strong policy-based reasons for {{u|Mark viking}}): An article with this title should be '''about''' introductions to special relativity, and sourced as such. Introductions to special relativity are nowhere mentioned. So it is not an article about introductions to special relativity. It is a personal essay, and thus a schoolbook example of wp:OR and wp:SYNTH. And it is rather poorly written, as abundantly evidenced at Talk:Introduction_to_special_relativity#Merge_analysis. And of course, more policy-based reasons at 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK)

Comment: Just to be clear, is the -REASON per #14: "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia"? Specifically 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL||WP:NOTTEXTBOOK)

Comment: As noted by multiple people, this article is still too technical to be legitimately called an "introduction". However, this means that the article needs work, not deletion. These separate "Introduction to..." articles are not forbidden on Wikipedia (just type "Introduction to" in the Wikipedia search box). In fact, Introduction to viruses|one is an FA. Also, as mentioned by some others who have commented here, the nom has not produced any policy-based reasons to delete the article, and I am not satisfied by the reasons put forth by DVdm. The main reason mentioned (i.e., ) does not seem to be valid, since the point of these "Introduction to" articles ''is'' to inform via simplification. As far as I'm aware,  is not a stand-alone reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK||WP:OR)

Comment: These intro articles were a bit of a fad in the sciences in 2005-6ish. They're difficult to write and most look like they haven't been maintained all that well. It may be that they've outlived their usefulness with better resources available on other projects aimed at the same audience. I wanted to vote keep on this one, but on reading the article I don't think this is salvageable, even if the topic might be. Time for 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)