This page was proposed for deletion by Kudpung ( talk · contribs) on 16 June 2017 with the comment: Unsourced. Essay or WP:Original research It was contested by JamesBWatson ( talk · contribs) on 2017-06-16 with the comment: Declining proposed deletion & adding a few references. These references are not ideal for the content of the article, but they are certainly enough to show that this is not "original research".

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics: Relativity Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the relativity task force.

@ JamesBWatson: When declining PRODs, or contesting them could you please add the template above ({{ Old prod full}})? Thanks! ( t)  Josve05a ( c) 23:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply

"Kaluza–Klein theory was too beset with inconsistencies to be a viable theory."

Does this refer to KK+SM or just KK? According to Kaluza-Klein theory, KK+SM is probably inconsistent ("flounders on a number of issues"), but it makes no mention of KK (GR+EM) itself being inconsistent. Yodo9000 ( talk) 18:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply