Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orbitally rearranged monoatomic element

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:48, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Orbitally rearranged monoatomic element

Quack quack. The last line cracks me up. Delete with haste. Denni☯ 03:01, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

• Delete Here is a copy of the patent [1]. Appears to be total nonsense. This site also covers alchemy. pstudier 03:16, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
• Delete because the photonic quasifibrillation of this article has utterly deoscillated its nucleic flux capacitors. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:34, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
• Folks, please do not jump to conclusions about this article. I noticed some of you found links to other articles, and simply because they were hosted by a shady website, you immediately labeled this as bunk. Those websites are not at all correct. I have added a link to his audio lectures, which are the definitive source. Please, please do not delete this article without listening to his lectures. Also, I'm sort of a newbie here. This is actually my first original article, but that's not why I want it saved. I would just like the decision to be made on factual information, and I believe that requires listening to his lectures. Thank you.the1physicist 05:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This line alone, "This decreased interactivity will cause the ORMEs to lose 4/9ths of their gravitational attraction." is grounds to delete this article. There is no known process for decreasing the gravitational attraction of a material short of removing some of its mass. Denni☯ 19:03, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
    • Well this is new material (no pun intended). Of course we don't know of such a process if it's relatively new and unknown.the1physicist 23:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • What part of "no known" do you not understand? We are talking classic physics here, not some conjectural area. BTW, your sig sucks - if you claim to be a physicist, then you better pony up some reason why. Sorry for the rudeness, but rrmrrrDenni☯ 01:16, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
• Delete because Wikipedia is not the place for non-peer reviewed research. JabberWok 06:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. User:The1physicist, please consult Wikipedia:No original research. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. It's advertising as well, but that's almost beside the point. I would consider a move to BJAON... Physchim62 16:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This cannot be speedied as Template:WP:CSD, because it makes sense on the surface. Advertising is not a criterion for speedy delete. And it is not a candidate for BJAODN because it goes onandonandon, and is so not funny. Denni☯ 19:00, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
• Delete, speedily if you accepts my other's words that it is patent nonsense. --Pjacobi 20:15, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
• Delete. This is, to anyone with even a basic knowledge of physics, patent nonsense. Having just completed a physics course which included some quantum theory, I have to say that this "discovery" throws much of what we know about matter entirely out the window (see gravity comment above) and at the same time has absolutely zero outside validation of his results. It is not being taken seriously by the scientific community. It shouldn't be.WAvegetarian 20:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • With Pjacobi's support, I happily speedy this article. Denni☯ 21:59, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
• If you want to delete this article because it isn't peer reviewed, then I suppose I can understand that. However, just because something isn't peer reviewed doesn't automagically mean it's incorrect. So if the information can be deemed correct, why not keep it? Mr. Hudson's work does indeed throw a lot of what we 'knew' about matter completely out the window. As such, I challenge you to listen to his lectures and see if it doesn't make sense.
  Now, regarding the 4/9ths gravity claim: Hal Puthoff theorized that gravity is an illusion cause by matter interacting with the space around it. He did some math and came up with the 4/9ths figure. This was in the 70s I believe. Now if you look at the patent link so graciously provided by pstudier, you will see about 12 Thermogravimetric analysis graphs about halfway down. They chart relative weight as a function of temperature. Take a look at those. There is obviously something anomalous happening.the1physicist 22:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This may be argued to be a deletable article on a variety of grounds, but it isn't patent nonsense so I've restored pending closing of this discussion. At worst it's original research--but as I found no problem finding independent references to the Hudson claims it isn't that either. It's somewhat POV and lacks references for one or two of its claims, which are presented as fact rather than speculation. If we can write perfectly good articles about the likes of E-meter and Xenu, I don't think ORME's will present any problem. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, "orbitally rearranged monoatomic element" gives exactly one hit at scholar.google.com. And guess who is involved. Mr Pitkanen, whose very private Theory of everything has been deleted from Wikipedia some months ago. --Pjacobi 15:12, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
    • Which means? If some nut mentions someone else's work in their theory, that has absolutely no correlation to the original person.the1physicist 23:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If patent nonsense like this is kept simply because it is not immediately unverifiable, the credibility of every other Wikipedia article is undermined. In Hudsonian terms, the decreased interactivity of every other article will cause them to lose 4/9ths of their intellectual attraction. -EDM 04:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm arguing to keep on the grounds that it is verifiable and obviously isn't patent nonsense (it's a crank theory, which would come under OR if not widely circulated). We have articles on flat earth and other nonsense. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Does it really matter whether the taxonomy of a crank theory is Original Research or Patent Nonsense? Either way, this stuff is lunacy of no encyclopedic value. -EDM 16:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes it does matter. The former is not a deletion criterion, the latter is. Patent nonsense would be basically something that doesn't even consist of coherent sentences in English. If an idea is nonsense, edit the content. See Xenu for an example of a good article about a completely utsnay idea. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Would you like me to edit the article to clarify a few things, or leave it alone while we're discussing it?the1physicist 23:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Being new to this process, I'm kind of curious as to why the lecture links were removed. Someone mentioned it could be advertising, but what is being advertised? If I was trying to increase that site's traffic, I would've linked to that site instead of directly to the audio files. I'm not trying to be a nuisance or anything, but I think further discussion of the validity of ORMEs/Mr. Hudson's claims would necessitate the restoration of the links. Also, regarding peer review, in his lectures Mr. Hudson references (several times) VERY similar research to his own being published in Physical Review C.the1physicist 06:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The lectures are not peer-reviewed. He can say what he likes in them. That's the problem. Take a look at the article's talk page for why this article is sooooooooo unlikely to be true. Physchim62 15:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • No, I didn't say they were. I said that there is indeed peer reviewed research being done on VERY similar topics to his. I believe that would also nullify the claim that this is original research.the1physicist 23:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Patented patent nonsense? That's novel! (Delete.) - Mike Rosoft 07:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — techno-babble nonesense. — RJH 16:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is nonsense. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't understand very much science. See the article's talk page for a quick debunking of practically every claim made in the article. Quale 19:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I just happened to locate all the references Mr. Hudson used in his lectures here: References The cited references are indeed published, peer reviewed works, and are extremely similar to Mr. Hudson's work.the1physicist 01:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I particularly liked Paranormal Observations of ORMEs Atomic Structure... Most of the articles mentioned are not peer-reviewed, those that are have nothing to do with the claims made in the current article. This is a sad attempt to fork a bogus idea, and a waste of everybody's time. Physchim62 21:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.