Talk:Calogero conjecture

This article is borderline-non-notable and should perhaps have been up for deletion. It is not pseudoscience far as I can tell, but it is non-notable as it apparently only has the original papers to show for. It is telling that Edward Nelson, far as I can see, has not written on this. EverGreg 22:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[Don't know the format for indent, sorry] This is a bit of a footnote, but it seems relevant enough to add as such to a "statistical quantum mechanics" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.248.80 (talk) 09:40, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

The indent is a colon. :-) Yeah, that might do it, I'll ask over at Talk:Interpretation of quantum mechanics if they find it notable enough. EverGreg 19:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I get bored telling people this, but non-notability is not a criterion for deletion. Keep it and see what happens.--Michael C. Price ^talk 19:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on the references. I was unaware of Gaeta's work, which changes my opinion. I think this should continue to be a separate page. EverGreg 22:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

So too, do i get bored seeing notability signs. They are in my opinion, a somewhat subversive way of trying to mask one's own inclinations or position towards an article as "wikipedia policy". Personally, i think that rather than something being not notable (which is entirely preposterous in that it will always remain personal opinion) presents an opportunity for expansion and research, rather than other such things; anyone who merely uses this on a physics or ANY science page based upon it's length is, entirely, and in the highest regard underestimating the range of theories and postulations placed therewithin.

Size does matter, but if really there is a specific little article, i have absolutely NO problem with it remaining like this if it is correct; if the article were nonsense then I would join in such a hypothesis, but this is in my opinion -- PERFECTLY notable. Uxorion 20:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)