| Revision as of 20:41, 27 September 2006 editAlexBrainer (talk | contribs)86 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:44, 28 September 2006 edit undoByrgenwulf (talk | contribs)1,234 edits →[]: deleteNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| *'''Keep''' - it hasn't been peer reviewed, but the first I heard of this theory was in New Scientist, and they weren't just crapping on it. This isn't the author using WP to publish ], it's the presentation of a theory which is generating discussion in the scientific world, and deserves an article. --]]] 13:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' - it hasn't been peer reviewed, but the first I heard of this theory was in New Scientist, and they weren't just crapping on it. This isn't the author using WP to publish ], it's the presentation of a theory which is generating discussion in the scientific world, and deserves an article. --]]] 13:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' - This theory is very old and the reference in New Scientist proves that is not a ]. The article can be rewritten but it is valid IMHO. | *'''Keep''' - This theory is very old and the reference in New Scientist proves that is not a ]. The article can be rewritten but it is valid IMHO. | ||
| *''' Strong Delete''' The theory is, indeed, old (so what?), and yes, it has appeared in New Scientist, alongside ], ], and other ]. But it isn't peer-reviewed (being paranoid isn't an excuse), and it is grossly irresponsible for an encyclopaedia to in any way endorse this nonsense by including it. It definitely fails ], if nothing else, because most information on the theory comes from untrustworthy primary sources, and New Scientist has proven itself to be thoroughly unreliable as far as its quality standards are concerned. But ultimately, it should be deleted because it is thoroughly discredited pseudoscientific twaddle. ] 01:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:44, 28 September 2006
Heim theory
I am reluctant to nominate a page for deletion that has had so much work put into it. The work here has, as far as I can tell, never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal (one of the criteria for inclusion for physical theories in general on wikipedia) and the entirety of the links supporting assertions made in the article appear to be to private companies. Even though the article sometimes takes great pains to announce its non-mainstream status (i.e., satisfies WP:NPOV), for the reasons above it violates WP:OR and thus I believe should be deleted. Sdedeo (tips) 05:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Heim theory never appeared in a journal because Heim was reclusive paranoic. Pavel Vozenilek 09:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Another comment: I don't know if this is relevant, but at least Heim theory has been used in winning AIAA paper for space propulsion, strange as it may be. Maybe this theory is getting more exposure in near future? http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925331.200-take-a-leap-into-hyperspace.html
- No, it should not be deleted: The reason it should not be deleted is that it is an account of a non-mainstream but real theory which probably has as much ultimate credence as string theory. In fact, probably more, as there are some predictions it makes that can be tested. This accords it the status of a theory far more than does inclusion in a peer-reviewed journal. The account given here is probably the best lay introduction available at the moment.
Even if it does turn out to be utter bunk, it has plenty of adherents and exists as an intellectual movement.
- Keep - the New Scientist article is more than enough verifiability for me. This theory exists and it has been discussed in mainstream scientific press. It may be that some of the assertions in the article constitute OR, but the article does not do so in its entirety. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but rewrite - the theory has by now acquired enough media coverage to be a worthy encyclopedic topic. Which does not mean it's actually real science (Heim's work never properly published, written in obscure notation by a recluse; Heim's followers publish mostly in nonpeer-reviewed conference papers; article results are taken from webpages and discussion fora; etc. etc.). The article should be rewritten to make it more obvious that this is not a real physical theory at least until it is published and peer reviewed. Friendly Neighbour 11:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Do not delete - as noted, it is a worthy encyclopedic topic and deserves an article even if it were pure fantasy. If someone feels the need to rewrite it, that should be discussed at the article, and not through the deletion process. Whateley23 12:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - it hasn't been peer reviewed, but the first I heard of this theory was in New Scientist, and they weren't just crapping on it. This isn't the author using WP to publish OR, it's the presentation of a theory which is generating discussion in the scientific world, and deserves an article. --Mnemeson 13:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - This theory is very old and the reference in New Scientist proves that is not a OR. The article can be rewritten but it is valid IMHO.
- Strong Delete The theory is, indeed, old (so what?), and yes, it has appeared in New Scientist, alongside perpetual motion machines, tinfoil hat manufacturers, and other bollocks. But it isn't peer-reviewed (being paranoid isn't an excuse), and it is grossly irresponsible for an encyclopaedia to in any way endorse this nonsense by including it. It definitely fails the policy on reliable sources, if nothing else, because most information on the theory comes from untrustworthy primary sources, and New Scientist has proven itself to be thoroughly unreliable as far as its quality standards are concerned. But ultimately, it should be deleted because it is thoroughly discredited pseudoscientific twaddle. Byrgenwulf 01:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)