Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timelike topological feature

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Closed timelike curve#Contractible versus noncontractible and deleting history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timelike topological feature

Timelike topological feature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A concept of doubtful notability, quite trivial from mathematical point of view (at least at the present extent). Delete it, or redirect to Wormhole#Time travel. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nomination. Trivial from a mathematical point of view, and not well-defined from a physical point of view. However, the interaction between global non-causality and local causality may be worth a sentence or two in some article on relativistic time travel. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  There are much more than two sentences in the article Causality conditions and linked articles, notably Globally hyperbolic manifold. Mainstream mathematical physics does not miss this topic by no means. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think "concept" is too strong a word; the article is a trivial remark, an aside that you might give in a lecture. Ozob (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Arthur Rubin. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Closed timelike curve#Contractible versus noncontractible. That section discusses exactly this point (with the same source). No need for a separate article.TR 09:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.