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The result of the debate was withdrawn by nom and speedy keep. -lethe ^{talk +} 01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing Admin: as valid references have now shown up, I am withdrawing my charge of OR and ask that this AfD be closed at the earliest opportunity as "Keep" --DV8 2XL 21:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - can you expand on your premise that this is original research? I'm not a physicist, but there's a reference, and it seems to be a valid theory. Writing about something you read in a scientific journal is not original research. Kafziel 16:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference is a web page with the note: "This essay is continually revised in the light of ongoing research." Hardly a peer reviewed source. --DV8 2XL 16:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the only external link is a worthless web page. The reference is a published work. Not all references need to be verifiable through the Internet. Kafziel 16:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science from Fisher Information is a book, not a peer-reviewed source. That's just not good enough. --DV8 2XL 17:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting your criteria? WP:NOR clearly states that "books published by a known academic publishing house" are also accepted. I'd say Cambridge University qualifies. Kafziel 17:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the science topics we tend to want to see peer-reviewed material. This would mean that the book could be cited if other refereed sources were mentioned. --DV8 2XL 17:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can understand wanting that, but that's not a requirement. If you want better sources, you're welcome to go find some, but it's certainly not a valid reason to delete the entire article. Changing my vote to "keep". Kafziel 17:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are books not peer-reviewed?? Self-published books may not be, but books published by houses like Cambridge University Press certainly are. Michael Hardy 22:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well do as you see fit, but note that another general convention is that the onus for providing proof rests on the defenders, not the critics. --DV8 2XL 18:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is published, peer reviewed research. However, it is also very speculative, fringe science. It seems almost no one but Freiden believes in this approach. I have added a link to a critical review as a first effort in bringing some balance and perspective to the article. Nonsuch 17:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the peer-reviewed reference? --DV8 2XL 17:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Books published by Cambridge University Press are (of course) peer-reviewed. Michael Hardy 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I can't make heads or tails of the theory, but I did find two more peer-reviewed articles in Phys Rev E which I added to the article, so whatever it is, its not NOR. 71.132.138.16 18:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as stated above, this is not Original Research based on the listed citations. I have no idea how valid his ideas are, but they have been published what appears to be a periodical dedicated to physics. From a content point I'd like to see some discussion of criticism if this is indeed controversial, and perhaps even a NPOV tag... but right now I see nothing that would warrent a deletion.--Isotope23 18:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As above. Passes Google test too. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've never heard of it. Are there verifiable citionations? Yes. So it's not original research. --Iantresman 20:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can't make heads or tails of the theory, either, and I should be able to, if it's correct. However, we're not here to judge correctness, and the Phys Rev E articles would seem good enough to me, if they're serious. (OTOH, I recall a note in Phys Rev Lett which thanked the authors of another article for their work on Tachyon research — dated 10 years in the future of the publication date.) Theoretical physicists are weird. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. Nertz 00:39, 7 June 2006 (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.