Deletion of Superseded scientific theories

Comment: Most of these issues could be resolved on the talk page.  If one were feeling particularly |bold, one could simply remove any off-topic, unreferenced text.  I think a rename might be a better choice than wholesale deletion of examples, though
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD)

Comment: but restrict it to Scientific theories that were proven wrong, not those that are incomplete (that'd encompass pretty much all of modern physics, I think). No valid reason for deletion has been provided; this doesn't descend to . Our ancestors genuinely believed in some funny things (e.g. Isaac Newton and alchemy), but who are we to brag? There are plenty of nutjobs out there with even sillier notions with much less justification
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:coatrack)

Comment: I agree that the real issue is one of scope and terminology, and those issues do not belong at Afd, unless the article is so foul that  applies, which is not the case here. '''Move discussion''' to :Talk:Superseded scientific theories. I like special contributor Special:Contributions/72.200.151.13|72.200.151.13's idea of renaming to Superseded scientific ideas
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)