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 keep. The two delete !votes don't provide policy-based reasons for deletion, while the keep !votes show that, despite its fringe status, the article subject is well-covered by third-party sources. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 08:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Gravity theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be pseudoscience. The basic idea of different wavelengths of light being affected by gravity makes sense, but that seems to be as far as this goes. Although scientific articles are linked to, most of this theory seems to exist in the popular media rather than the scientific literature. The detailed rebuttal at [1] seems sensible. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It does seem that there's a non-trivial number of scientific publications about this theory, though I haven't yet had time to look at them properly nor am I sure if they're in reputable journals, so I'm undecided for now. Sam Walton (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Even if it is pseudoscience, isn't the issue whether it's notable pseudoscience? After all, we have articles such as Biorhythm, Bermuda Triangle, Chemtrail conspiracy theory and Phrenology, and, while none of those subjects are valid science, I don't think anyone would credibly suggest deleting them for lack of notability. I'm not casting a !vote, at least for the moment, but just want to focus the discussion on notability rather than credibility. If notable (which premise I'm not taking a position on, at least for the moment), I'd rather that the article be retained and the pseudoscientific criticisms be prominently made than that it be deleted. (Disclosure: although I've edited the article, my edits are largely along the lines of cosmetic maintenance and vandalism reversion; I have no real preference as to its retention or deletion.) TJRC (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable junk science. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

"Junk science" is not a policy or guideline basis for deletion. --Bejnar (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just because it may be wildly incorrect doesn't mean that it's an automatic delete, but that WP:FRINGE applies. RG appears to have originated with João_Magueijo and Lee Smolin -- their 2004 article has been cited by 164 articles. Magueijo was still working on it as of 2013 in this paper with John D. Barrow. Per this article, Smolin has moved in favour of Relative locality. Even (contrafactually) if every paper on the topic happened to have been written by random SnarXiv generation, the fact that it got the quantity of tabloid/popsci buzz it did is somewhat notable, regardless of the quality -- or lack of it -- of that buzz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydronium Hydroxide (talk • contribs) 09:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This doesn't seem to be pseudoscience or junk science at all. It is no more no less than what is stated in the article, a theory. One that that was "first suggested" by no less than Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. Should we consider merging into the stub Relative locality, as Smolin would seem to suggest we should? That would be fine with me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, "I agree with" recommendations do not receive much weight. WP:PERNOM says that comments adding nothing but a statement of support for a prior comment add little to the discussion. Participants are always encouraged to provide evidence or arguments that are grounded in policy, practice, or simple good sense to support their positions. As the WP:Guide to deletion#Discussion says: Always explain your reasoning. ... "!Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin. Also unfortunately Xxanthippe did not provide a policy or guideline reason for deletion. --Bejnar (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep even if it's wrong, it doesn't mean it should get deleted. I think it should stay on the grounds that, yes, this theory was suggested by scientists. The article even acknowledges it's flaws; that's what the criticism section is for so I'm saying keep because it's not just about putting the "correct" theories, this wiki should catalog as many theories exist and note any criticism it may have received.--Awesomewiki64 (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it meets WP:GNG, there is plenty of material available. I agree that WP:FRINGE applies, but dealing with that is for the article's talk page. --Bejnar (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2015 (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.