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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  19:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to find anything on this theory or its supposed creators Peter Vincent and Dr Chris Wilcox. Looks to me like a creation of User:Lithium412. — Laura Scudder | Talk 17:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment on what grounds do you associate this article with dr wilcox
• Delete as non-verifiable theory. I can't find any references to the theory or the creators. Possibly just created by another user and then just vandalized by User:Lithium412, who has been fairly active today.--Isotope23 18:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- SCZenz 18:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sounds like a lame attempt at string theory. Google knows naught. linas 22:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obscure pseudoscience. ManoaChild 02:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google, arXiv, citeBase yield no hits on alleged theory, which apparently was never published if it ever existed. Article on Chris Wilcox gives link to CERN, but this website does not contain the cited document allegedly by this Wilcox, and I could not find a Wilcox at CERN via Google, although someone at CERN with access to a staff directory might have better luck (if Wilcox exists, it seems he might be some kind of computer or media relations staffer, but even if he exists, there is a question whether the alleged theory might not be another case of someone trying to attribute a made-up "theory" to a real and innocent person). ---CH (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unremarkable to say the least.Voice of All ^@|E|Merit 16:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. can't find anything on this at all. ---Mpatel (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete I am a technician at CERN and have personally verified the authenticity of Professor Vincent and indeed Dr Wilcox, who is a personal friend. I can catagorically state that gravitational oscillating plane theory is GENUINE, although the article here is not the most accurate. I have to say, by even questioning the validity of work by these distingushed scientists you should all be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves. If you have any questions, please contact me at the usual address. --Svenson 21:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if you really are, why is your spelling so dreadful? --MacRusgail 22:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I also have my doubts that "Svenson" works at this renound facility, as he calls it on his user page. Like most of the apparent hoaxes I've seen, this reads like something written by a mischievous junior high school student, so I hope this is just a phase which "Svenson" is rapidly outgrowing.---CH (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's that smell? Dirty socks?--Isotope23 16:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been wondering what might be the motivation for 86.9.0.194, 82.14.4.161, Dr uri krossavich, Dr greenson, Lithium412. Their contribs (actually, I think the same youngster in Hampshire might be behind all these edits) suggest that this is some kind of Dungeon's and Dragons game (various named 'planes' seem to play a role in that game). I tried to suggest to "krossavich" that he try using some of the spoof Wikipedias rather than the real one for this kind of game.---CH (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment firstly, we are not from hampshire and i resent the implication and secondly, i do not play or even know anything about dungeons and dragonsDr uri krossavich 19:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete Although any literature on this subject never received mainstream publication i can assure you it is a viable theory. I work at fermilab as part of a team searching for the graviton particle and i can say that, allthough it is not a theory i personaly subscribe to, it is one that can yet be ruled out.
  • Not that we believe you, but please see WP:SOCK, WP:V and WP:NOR ---CH (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.