Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Maxwell-Lorentz Electrodynamics

Beyond Maxwell-Lorentz Electrodynamics
I don't know if this a copyvio of a work by George Galeczki, or original research by George Galeczki himself, but it doesn't belong here. RickK 23:55, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * The original article carries no copyright notice. Please do not delete.  This paper may open an urgent path to new understanding of electrodynamics that opens paths to superseding fossil and uranium fuels as well as beginning to reverse Greenouse Warming. Overtone 00:15, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Just because something doesn't have a copyright notice doesn't mean you can copy it. Just because my car isn't locked in the garage doesn't mean you can steal it.  If this is NOT your property, you need to get approval from the originator to release under the GFDL, with the understanding that it can and will be edited.  Otherwise, this has to go.  RickK 00:46, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Listed on copyright problems. All works are automatically copyright under the Berne Convention. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 01:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fringe physics. -- Decumanus 00:24, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
 * Overtone, Wikipedia isn't here to attempt to open urgent paths to new understandings etc. That's what those free personal web pages over at yahoo.com are for. Delete func(talk) 03:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete'. Crackpot. The guy who wrote it is supposedly the president of the "Society for the Advancement of Physics" which does not seem to exist (according to Google) except in references to this particular fellow listing it as his title. I think regarding crackpot/fringe science, the general policy ought to be something along the lines of: 1. Wikipedia cannot present it as anything reasonably close to fact if it does not appear in some sort of mainstream scientific literature; 2. If we aren't pretending it is anything close to fact then it would have to be an article about George Galeczki's theory and how people on the internet (but no actual professional physicists) believe it will do all sorts of wonderful things. And only then if it is notable -- if a lot of people believe in the crackpot theory and it is worth noting (i.e. the Apollo moon landing hoax). This guy Galeczki seems total crackpot the more of his papers I Google -- he's in with some crowd of "dissident physicists" who are anti-Einsteinian and probably anti-QM, using most of the same old arguments that have been made unsuccessfully since Einstein first published a hundred years ago. --Fastfission 05:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, Einstein himself was anti-QM. ;-) func(talk) 16:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Copyvio, promotion of non-notable crackpot theory.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 17:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Copyvio or not, it is, scientifically speaking, bullshit and does not belong in any encyclopaedia. StuartH 13:00, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete (William M. Connolley 21:38, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)).
 * Delete. Fringe science, original research, possibly copyvio. Andris 00:00, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)