Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal rotation curve
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
— User:Cyclopia, 15:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)