Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clockwork universe theory
The paradigm of the clockwork universe has been a notable topic of philosophical discourse since the time of Isaac Newton.  A Google Books search on the phrase "clockwork universe" turns up several thousand results.  The article already contains over two dozen references, many of which qualify as  and the "Further Reading" notes that an entire book is devoted to the subject (''The Clockwork Universe: Isaac Newton, the Royal Society, and the Birth of the Modern World'').  "Clockwork universe" has even become a notable concept outside its original domain of philosophy and classical mechanics (e.g. http://books.google.ca/books?id=GAzOg4eQl2YC&pg=PA89 The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy).  The article readily satisfies  and the topic is sufficiently distinct from both Determinism and Mechanism (philosophy) that a merge is not required.  Any portions of the article having issues with , , or citations which fail  can be corrected through ordinary editing.  These are all |surmountable problems that do not represent good reasons for deleting the article.  I agree with the nom that there is no Clockwork universe '''''theory''''' per se.  It's more proper to speak of the topic as a paradigm that is based upon a philosophical interpretation of physical science, especially Newton's theory of classical mechanics, than a "theory" in its own right - a word which should be reserved for scientific predictive/explanatory models which have become established through a substantial body of supporting experimental evidence.  So I would support renaming the article to Clockwork universe (which currently redirects to clockwork universe theory
— User:Mike, 15:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:NPOV||WP:COATRACK||WP:V||WP:SURMOUNTABLE (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)