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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schwarzchild proton[edit]

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

Crackpot theory claims to overturn the Standard Model, replacing the quark description of the proton by claiming it is actually a black hole with no internal structure. The sum total of supporting citation for this article is a single reference to an obscure "award" from a "Computing Anticipatory Systems" (not peer reviewed by physicists). CosineKitty (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE says delete. Cosmo0 (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete main reason: no significant coverage of this fringe idea outside the authors website and a nonnotable, nonphysicist conference. to make it here, we'd at least need evidence of controversy. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a theory, it has been published and it's intriguing at some level. I come to Wikipedia not only to read mainstream educational stuff but also for thought provoking stuff. Also, if you delete this page on the ground that's fringe science then why Time cube is still there? -- Femmina (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:FRINGE covers this topic well: the Time Cube is widely known and disparaged, whereas this theory has no notable coverage, not even ridicule. CosineKitty (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try to search "Nassim Haramein" on youtube. If you sum the views of the first four videos that come out you get 241118. Now, if you sum the digits of that number you get 17. That is exactly the number that comes after 16 which is exactly 4 times 4 which is the length of the word Keep. Seriously, he's not that unknown and unappreciated. -- Femmina (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable self-published crackpot theory per CosineKitty. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:FRINGE, per nom, and per total lack of coverage in credible, independent, secondary sources. Haramein isn't notable and neither are his theories. Yilloslime ^T_C 06:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Let me try another tactic here. If you delete this article you planets will become disaligned and your sacred geometry will get all scrambled. Are you willing to accept this risk? Or maybe try not to think about this as something related to the field of physics but as something related to new age. If that helps. -- Femmina (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I for one am quite willing to take the risk of scramblage! :) Seriously though, I think you are missing the point about this deletion proposal. The primary problem is lack of notability as established by any reliable source. I support deletion of this article, but would not do so for say, Flat Earth Society or Plasma cosmology, because the Schwartzchild proton idea appears only in a non-peer-reviewed self-published paper and in various blogs and YouTube videos. To survive in Wikipedia, any topic must be important enough for established third parties to make note of it, even if they are just making fun of it. For example, suppose if Scientific American were to debunk the theory with a couple of paragraphs of ridicule, and we could include that here as a citation, the article might have a leg to stand on. So far, every attempt I have made to find anyone other than Haramein writing about Haramein's theory has yielded only YouTube videos and people on blogs asking "WTF?". If some day it attains any measurable following, even as a well-known self-parody pseudo-religion like the Church of the Subgenius, I would reverse myself and support the article's existence here, assuming of course that the topic was covered accurately, from neutral point of view, and based on reliable sources. CosineKitty (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking into adding something to the article, just to see if it was possible but I honestly don't understand mr. Haramein's theory well enough to describe it in my own words. I also agree with your reasoning. According to the rules this article can go but still I feel like we're about to give up on the last Dodo bird on earth. -- Femmina (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't even "mainstream" for a fringe theory. It's evidently obscure enough that there's not even enough interest to bother debunking it, and no evidence supporting it. The "Well, (insert related subject here) has an article!" argument doesn't hold. This needs to be judged on its own merits. Or lack thereof. Bagheera (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems to be no independent support for this theory. The only readily available documentation is from the author of the paper. While not strictly relevant to this isolated article, it should be noted that the page for the author has already been deleted twice - this seems to be an attempt to "gain a toehold," and nothing more, as the article is so short as to be meaningless other than providing a link to his page. --Tharaun (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Tharaun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's right; I finally decided to make an account. Since I'm not the originator of the page in question, though, I fail to see how your comment affects my contribution... I could just log out and go back to commenting anonymously, but would it change the fact of my statement? Perhaps Wikipedia:BITE is relevant? --Tharaun (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if that was bite-y. It's standard practice to tag !votes from newly registered accounts with — [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . I've done this probably dozens of times, and usually these accounts are obvious sockpuppets desperately trying to keep their pet article on WP. This is clearly not the case with you and your !vote, but I'm just trying to be consistent in my tagging of accounts.Yilloslime ^T_C 19:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The paper setting out the hypothesis (I personally don't think it rates 'theory' in scientific usage) allegedly won an award as best paper - at a conference for Computer Anticipating Systems, which puzzles me a bit. I can't find any official confirmation of this award or of the paper being presented there. Plenty of bloggish etc mentions. I also found this http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32453 discussion of Haramein's work. I don't recommend reading the whole thread (I haven't).... (See also David Icke for background if you do go there.) No independent reliable references, and definite OR. Peridon (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To let everyone know, I am in no way affiliated with the resonance project. I just heard the theory proposed and explained in a youtube video, and I found the resonance project's webpage. I'm aware that few other sources cite the page, but the mathematics used in Haramein's paper just seem to make sense of the seemingly nonsensical "strong force." Please, if someone can just read through his paper, check the math; it all ties everything together. If you don't want to read the paper to get the math, watch the youtube video that brought me to create this page posted in the external links section. Please note the examples of public interest: Luke Fortune's Radio interview, Luke Fortune's lecture. Luke Fortune is a classically trained physicist who has written several books. If there's anything else I can do to keep this page running, please let me know. In the radio interview, Luke mentions attending a university lecture regarding the topic of the Schwarzchild proton. I'll see if I can contact Luke Fortune to get more information regarding the lecture he mentioned. Doc7777777777 (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Doc7777777777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At a quick glance on Google, Luke Fortune seems to be self-published via lulu.com, and connected with UFO and other fringe matters. He appears to be a 'certified paralegal' (whatever that is - they can cure a lot of things now...) ~~He is also on FaceBook (I think most people are, except me).~~ I can not find a reference to him being a 'classically trained physicist'. Could be further down the list. Peridon (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on e-mailing him, but although it would be much more convenient, I can't seem to find him on Facebook. Well, I can find several Luke Fortune's, but I can't seem to verify that any one of them is the Luke Fortune in the videos. All I know is that since the radio interview was from Vegas, most likely, he lives in Las Vegas, NV, or at least somewhere in the general area. Doc7777777777 (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try author@ufohowto.com or through http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-UFO-How-To-Scientific-Development-Trust-501c3/212231431245?ref=share The 'Luke Fortune' I noted above (and have now struck through) appears to be someone else. Peridon (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this "theory" has convinced you, Doc, of its validity. The reality though is that it's not a mainstream theory and doesn't appear to have any support in the actual Physics community. The "award" for best paper was not from a physics journal, nor was the paper peer reviewed by physicists. If the article was presented in a way that reflected this was not a well accepted mainstream theory, then it would have a much better chance of inclusion. As it stands, there's virtually nothing that supports its entry. Cheers. Bagheera (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2010 (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.