Deletion of Universal rotation curve

Comment: Probably passes . There are very severe  and  problems, but probably not quite enough for a  solution. -- Special:Contributions/120.23.23.27|120.23.23.27
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:COI||WP:NPOV||WP:TNT)

Comment: Multiple scholarly articles (specifically) on this subject have 100+ citations according to Web of Science. Pass of  is obvious. It also shows that  is not applicable. AfD is not the correct method to deal with any other serious issues (such as  and ) that the article may have
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:FRINGE||WP:COI||WP:NPOV)

Comment: WP:GNG is passed. To the degree that this is  it is passed too (multiple sources discussing it other than its promoter). The level of acceptance or not of the theory should be correctly described in the article, but that a topic is debated does not mean it should not be included
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: passes GNG. If it's fringe, then |it should be treated as such, but that's a separate matter. If there are  or  problems, those should obviously be addressed (via noticeboards if they can't be resolved at the article) but deletion isn't the way to go
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:COI||WP:NPOV)

Comment: There is sufficient independent (i.e. not by Salucci) coverage, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22universal+rotation+curve%22 as Gscholar shows. Yes, it might be a fringe/minoritary/controversial theory, but it is notable in the  sense: we have multiple independent academic sources covering it. Salucci seems a respectable academic too, he has a http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7264/abs/nature08437.html paper in Nature where he references his concept as well. This (even if it isn't an independent source) strengthens the case for academic respectability/notability. I want to refer {{u|Paolosalucci}} to http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000941 this paper which can help him understand better how Wikipedia works for scientists
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: this is so far out of the mainstream as to be |a fringe theory, although the way that History of science|science changes is through different paradigms.  I'm not sure this even counts as a fringe theory as we know it; it's more of a |synthesis of primary sources.  While it has |some sources, I'd like to see more secondary sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:SYNTH||WP:42||WP:42)