Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamic Universe

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 Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dynamic Universe

This is a vanity article that is based on the original research of the author of the page. --ScienceApologist 20:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable theory. Doesn't seem to be taken very seriously by much of anybody, though the author has made a great effort to spread it in as many forums and sites as he can. Fan1967 21:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per Fan1967. Tevildo 21:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. The actual technical merit is not the issue. The criteria for inclusion are: is it notable (no, IMO), and is it reliably sourced per neutral 3rd party evaluators (no, IMO). Crum375 22:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Fan-1967--Nick Y. 23:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Researching this, I found circumstantial evidence that the user creating this article is definitely not the theory's author (same username is used in other forums, and if it is the author, the act is uncannily good), although the user is clearly an adherent. So, for me, WP:NOR/WP:VAIN are not an issue here.
• Article does seems to fail WP:RS 3rd party, per Crum375, although anything that tries to refute General Relativity is gonna have a hard time there. I'm still not convinced this definitely warrants a delete. Neutral for now.. --DaveG12345 02:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Just a clarification: "refuting GR" sounds like crackpottery. "Approximating GR" is a better description. Nevertheless, I wonder if a peer-reviewed journal counts as a third party.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vuo (talk • contribs) 21:37, June 28, 2006.

• You first have to establish notability, the single neutral reference is insufficient, IMO. Crum375

• Delete Whether esoterically interesting or not, it ultimately fails WP:NOT A7. --DaveG12345 04:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm really amused some people would think I'm some "adherent" to Suntola or even Suntola himself. For some reason, the professional or more involved contributors I expected haven't appeared, and the current version is essentially what I - not a physicist - read from the author's site. So, it can't be very good, and I agree, would deserve deletion citing quality alone if it were a full article, but as a stub I doubt it's exceptionally bad. Nevertheless, notability is a problem, since the application (satellite embedded computing) is highly specialized. --Vuo 21:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment By "adherent" I merely meant you had more than a passing familiarity with the work, apologies if anything more than that was inferred, bad word-choice. I agree the problem is notability. --DaveG12345 16:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Speaking of the third party, see [1] --Vuo 15:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete If not a vanity or OR issue the article is not notable and also misleading. It is not notable: there are a lot of 'crackpot' theories on the net, as this theory claims to be an alternative to GR and QM it would only become notable and differentiated from 'crackpot theory' if published in accepted peer reviewed journals (reliably sourced ) at the very least. This theory has not been. Furthermore the article title could be misleading as the phrase "dynamic universe" is used in cosmology to refer either to the standard Friedmann expanding, non-static universe ('dynamic' as opposed to 'static') or, more recently, in brane theory, to refer to the dynamical motion of 'branes', or individual universes. Garthbarber 11:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment A personal assessment of the theory itself: The theory's author does not understand the relativity theory he purports to replace, in particular Suntola is confused about relativistic time dilation. It is clearly crackpottery. Garthbarber 11:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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.