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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dipole antigravity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Fails on notability and possibly on original research grounds as well. The article appears to have been written solely to promote the author's theory, which failed to gain acceptance in the physics community (see the author's note on the talk page). Jim E. Black 08:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Discussion removed to the talk page --EMS | Talk 17:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – the article in Physica Scripta has never been cited, and the corresponding preprint has been cited exactly once (in another dead-end paper which exists nowhere but the arXiv). WP:VANITY, WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE. And ever since the Bullet Cluster results, the market for modified gravity theories to escape the need for dark matter is, well, not inviting. Anville 17:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:SCIENCE. No evidence of notability. (It does pass WP:NOR on the technicality of peer reviewed journal publication.) It also fails WP:ATT due to the total lack of any independent primary or secondary sources. --EMS | Talk 17:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Point taken about WP:NOR; however, since the Physica Scripta article is behind a subscription wall, I can't tell how much of this came from there and how much was invented ex nihilo. I suspect much of the material is not in the arXiv preprint, either. Anville 17:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm willing to give the author the benefit of the doubt. Even without WP:NOR your other reasons apply, and are more than adequate for the removal of this article. (This article is one reason why I frowm on WP:NOR, and love the idea of merging it into WP:ATT.) --EMS | Talk 18:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum: As the creator and primary editor of this article (User:Tachyonics), is almost certainly the creator of this theory (Dr. Eue Jin Jeong), this article also violates WP:COI. See the related discussion for evidence. --EMS | Talk 01:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of notability. Gnixon 18:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- one person's theory. --Pjacobi 19:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Getting some theory or experiment published in one of the thousands of scientific journals does not ensure getting an article in Wikipedia. I would have several articles if that were the case! The article has never been cited by another scientist, per discussion at the Wikipedia Reference Desk: Science. Edison 05:08, 11 April 2007 (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.