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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gravimotion[edit]

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

A "revolutionary interpretation of motion", brought here by its author. There seems to have existed a self-published book, but hardly any reception [1], not to mention in journals [2]. Tikiwont 11:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - Please note that all three "keep" opinions present so far were placed here by User:Henrisalles, the creator of the article. --EMS | Talk 14:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as OR (to be polite about it). andy 12:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is true that the gravimotion interpretation of gravity and motion has not been endorsed by physicists. It is true that the book "Gravimotion" had little success.

But is it not true also that new concepts are rejected as such, just because they are new! Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for endorsing the heliocentric theory. Galileo was forced to write essays he did not believe in. Newton had to delay the publishing of his famous Principia. Ludwig Boltzmann killed himself because nobody wanted to believe in his theory. I do not by far compare myself to these great men, but nowadays physics took over; any new idea, not in "physics" way of thinking, has no merit! Just read the comment above it has no valid argument! Please express what you understand is wrong with gravimotion's interpretation of nature. You can contact me if you need detailed explanations. In case my reference to my website "gravimotion.info" were to be the culprit, I just removed it. For ten years now I have been working at trying to get some exposure. A third book will be published this year. If this article is removed, it will prove once more that comments that are irrelevant are nowadays more important than innovative ideas are. User:HenriSalles8 May 2007

• delete, delete, DELETE! No cites, no content, no evidence that anyone ever cared about this.... it's just crankish nonsense! DELETE! Mangoe 13:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Asserting it is "crankish nonsense" doesn't prove anything. Whereas the initiator's search is: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=Gravimotion&btnG=Search everybody else search is: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=gravimotion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Henrisalles (talk • contribs) 13:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment-- If you do this search, and exclude Wikipedia, what you come upon is a walled garden of sites all of which seem to be authored by the creator of this "theory". And the inevitable Amazon.com reference. You also get hits on singers who indendently used the word, and so forth. There is no evidence that anyone of any importance ever took this seriously. Mangoe 13:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer to commentThe “author” had contacts with physicists at CERN and had many discussions with many people who (granted) were not of “any importance”, but who had the intelligence at least to read about gravimotion. The truth of the matter is that none of the people, scientists or not who read about gravimotion, without endorsing it did ever emitted the opinion that it was wrong. Henrisalles
    • Response You say these things, and yet you do not produce any citations to back them up. Surely by now you have caught on to the fact that we (and anyone else who happens along) are going to expect some proof that these interactions took place, and that they resulted in some positive replies from the real physicists. At the present, however, all the evidence points to this being pure nonsense. Mangoe 14:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It should be clear from the nomination that I did both Google searches.--Tikiwont 14:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable due to lack of references. If nobody even thinks enough of a crank theory to write "this is a crank theory", it's not wikipedia-worthy. "People make fun of it" isn't a reason to take it seriously—the Galileo case is only interesting (and is a rare exception) because he had evidence to support himself. What's the old saw, "they laughed at Galileo and Newton, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." DMacks 14:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Another comment A glim at the bookseller links shows that the article author is also the author of the book on this stuff. I've looked at the gravimotion.com website, and as someone with passing grades in introductory college physics, I can say that it is obviously complete twaddle. Mangoe 14:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously some are so entrenched in their own thinking, they can only laugh at whatever is not their thinking! At the image of these people, but maybe for a Lee Smolin or a Peter Woit, physics frozen in whatever it is cannot tolerate dissent! And when dissent has a point the only weapon left is laugh and contempt!Henrisalles
  • Wikipedia is not a place for weapons or battles among ideas, it is a place to write about things—all ideas—that have acchieved at least some level of notability. This AfD is not about the idea of Gravimotion per se. We actually do have many articles about non-mainstream-science topics. The issue here isn't that the idea doesn't pass scientific muster, but that the article itself (regardless of how might-be-proven-right-someday you think the idea is) doesn't meet wikipedia standards. DMacks 14:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DMacks, thank you for your balanced arbitration and your politeness. Please give it a few days and let see what happens.Henrisalles
• Delete per, well, all deletion arguments given above. Classic case of fractured ceramics. Anville 16:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per DMacks. Stammer 18:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no evidence that a single reliable source has even mentioned this theory, so the article completely fails WP:N, and arguably WP:NEO as well. EALacey 21:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR, if not speedy delete as patent nosense. At best it fails WP:N, WP:SCIENCE, WP:ATT, and (based on the mention of "my webiste" above) WP:COI. --EMS | Talk 21:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as complete bollocks. Someguy1221 22:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's get it over with Nature and the science of physics fascinate me.

  OK, gravimotion is deemed “unworthy of wikipedia”.

  That is a lesson of humility. It occurred so fast!

  And I am sorry but I have to write it, some are so full of themselves its pathetic!

  On the other hand discipline is good! I agree with all of it: maintain high standards!

  But please stop the beating!Henrisalles

  I regret that thre best way to "stop this" is for you to type ((db|creator requests deletion)) at the top of the article, which will promptly result in its deletion and closing of this AfD. I know that some people really are entrenched, but as someone whose own choice has been to keep their original research out of the article space, I find it very hard to sympathize with you. --EMS | Talk 02:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I notice that on User:Henrisalles " I intend to open a new item in WIKIPEDIA labeled gravimotion, which will introduce my theory. I did that over a year ago (in 2005). But deleted the item after reading about Wikipedia's "No original research policy". I felt at the time I had to delete the item because there were no refrences to it. Now I have a website and a book, to which I can refer and which will be published this year by a reputable publishing company." DGG 03:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment DGG I read your own user page and I appreciate your ethics. But why did you not take a position (Delete or delete weak, or whatever)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Henrisalles (talk • contribs) 12:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete OR Feydakin 11:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete this bollocks. Excise this type of nonsense from Wikipedia as quickly as possible, please. --ScienceApologist 18:09, 12 May 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.