Talk:Unitary field theory

Please clarify

Someone started this sub article, and I now marked it as "stub" as well as cleaned it up a bit; obviously it should be expanded upon before one can form an opinion. However, someone else put it up for deletion, claiming that it's "OR, non-notable, possibly pseudoscience".

1. Which one of the three?

2. Please show that the claimed objection applies to both publications from the Christopher Publishing House as well as to Cresset Press, or that these don't address the subject matter. Otherwise, please help improving it.

Thanks in advance, Harald88 23:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

I have redirected this to the appropriate section of Albert Einstein, which contains a useful description of the theory, unlike previous revisions of this article. The Baranski contributions appear to be non-notable, and possibly pseudoscientific: absurdly pretentious titles like that of the reference given are generally clear indicators of pseudoscience. --Philosophus ^T 18:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, redirects to sections don't work; the redirect goes to the whole article. Besides that, wouldn't Classical unified field theories be a more appropriate redirect? --Lambiam ^Talk 18:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I saw that before. The problem is that it has no information about this, so I thought that redirecting to the whole article of Einstein would be better right now. Feel free to change it - I don't have time to copy the information to that page. --Philosophus ^T 18:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of you, and thus I copy-pasted the missing information from Einstein's article (where it may be trimmed) to Classical unified field theories, where it hopefully will be expanded on. However, this was disagreed on by CH, who appears to think that no information is better than the information as collected by other editors! Harald88 19:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]