Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heim theory (4th nomination)


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Heim theory
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Crackpot ideas don't need wiki articles. See the following discussions: 1 and 2. The "theory" is just nonsense based on quack ideas and numerology. Wikipedia should not promote such nonsense quack rubbish. Dimension10 (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but stubbify and rewrite. Although "Heim's theory" (of a different Heim) in linguistics will generate more hits in a google search, this rejected theory of everything deserves a short stub which makes it clear that the theory has not been accepted. At present the article is very poorly written with misleading unwarranted tables and obvious failings even in the lede. Reducing it to a stub with a prominent section on criticisms would solve those problems. A similar failed theory of everything is ECE theory. (This is a repetition of what I wrote in December 2012.) Mathsci (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is much worse than ECE. As far as I know, ECE didn't turn to things like numerology and astrology  and crackpot reasoning but it had a fatal error . Dimension10 (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I couldn't say whether it's better or worse. The article on ECE theory is written conservatively. Many errors were pointed out in the mathematics. (Off-wikipedia claims have also been made about its superiority to the standard model, applications to "new" phenomena that were probably scams, etc.) The main point here however is how an article should be written on a fringe theory that has had no mainstream acceptance. It seems that the options are either for no article at all or a shortish stub. Mathsci (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Heim theory or ECE could even claim that 2+2=5, or that electrons looks like dancing bananas -it doesn't matter for us. What matters is that sources talk about it. -- cyclopia  speak!  18:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Stubbify and rewrite or redirect to Burkhard Heim. The objection against the article as it stands is that it deceptively claims that the theory has some sort of standing in the scientific community, which it doesn't in the remotest degree. Attempts that I and others to mitigate these false claims have been removed by the partisans. The previous Afds are worth looking at. ECE theory treats a similar situation nicely. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC).
 * Comparison with ECE is meaningless. See my comment above^. Dimension10 (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Neutral for the moment. The question really is not whether the theory is a good one or a stupid one, but whether if it is a notable one.  There are a lot of references.  Even a reference to a reliable source that says "There is no scientific basis whatever for Heim's Theory" would be an argument for keeping the article.  Cleanup is probably the best option.Deb (talk) 07:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The question is not about notability. It is about advertisement of crackpot nonsense. Dimension10 (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The advertisement issue can be dealt with by cleanup. I recommend you take a trip to Fringe theories/Noticeboard for support.Deb (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment It is not a mainstream theory, and is on par with things like [www.laporte-bryan.com LaPorte Bryan's Theory of Everything], and other such nonsense. Such unmathematical ideas which claim to be TOEs should not be promoted here, as it only fuels the crackpot industry. Dimension10 (talk) 07:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * By your nomination, it is assumed you support deletion. No need to "vote" twice. Cheers, Stalwart 111  08:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep with a lot of cleanup. The article needs to be almost entirely re-written in order to comply with WP:UNDUE.  069952497a  (U-T-C-E) 12:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. per WP:GNG, and WP:UNDUE. As far as I can tell, this theory does not have widespread acceptance in the scientific community. Also, the only real promotion seems to be from one or two of Heim's disciples, such as Walter Drocher, who may have been written about in an article here or there; and who may have spoken at a scientific conference here or there. However, even with this being the case, I am not seeing a lot of main stream coverage in the media; certainly not enough coverage in the media to say this article is notable per WP:RS. As far as I can tell, even this article's references do not link to reliable sources and therefore do not demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. Also, I'm not seeing anything pertaining to this theory on Google Scholar whether I use "Heim theory", "Heim theory of everything", or "B.Heim". All I get is articles related to Linguistics. So, in other words, I am not seeing any print, except unacceptable WP:RS, that says implies this theory is widely accepted has merit; and I am not seeing any print, except unacceptable WP:RS, that this says this theory has been discredited. At the same time, judging from the online physics forums and a couple of other online items, I personally believe this theory does not have merit.  Steve Quinn (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. WP:FRINGE is probably more helpful than WP:UNDUE here. In particular, the nom is quite wrong when he says "Crackpot ideas don't need wiki articles." Notable ones do (although I have no opinion regarding the notability of this theory). -- 202.124.88.39 (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Here we go again. Notable per WP:GNG: see for a quick example coverage in books. That said, the nomination rationale is invalid. Is it crackpottery? Sure thing. Is "crackpottery" a deletion rationale? Not at all. Notable crackpot theories are still notable. By having this article, Wikipedia does not "promote" anything, we just describe a wacky theory that exists. NPOV/UNDUE problems can be solved by editing, so they're not a reason to delete, per deletion policy. -- cyclopia  speak!  08:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you scroll through the search (on "heim theory" + "phsyics") on google books, after not so many entries the references are to the linguistic theory that I mentioned. Mathsci (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * After not so many entries, maybe: but I suppose, , , , , are enough for WP:GNG. --  cyclopia  speak!  09:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean up. The book sources noted above establish the facts that it's (a) notable and (b) rubbish. Being rubbish is not a deletion rationale. -- 203.171.197.29 (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is not here to decide what is right, what is crackpot, but what is WP:NOTABLE, and this theory is notable, even the New Scientist comic has an article about it. Some people may WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, but that is not a reason for deletion. If there is another theory of the same name, then create another article for that theory, having a more notable theory is not a valid reason for deletion for the lesser one. If there are reliable sources calling it crackpot, then call it crackpot.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep, per GNG, and make it a stub per WP:FRINGE. Thanks to Cyclopia for providing the book sources. There is nothing to indicate that this is an accepted theory in the scientific community. However, the sources show that some people are at least interpreting Heim theory with unique perspectives. Yet, in contrast, one source from Springer (by K.F. Long) appears to be a serious scientific endeavor, and on page 295 it states: "Heim theory is not studied as part of mainstream scientific research today". . So, it seems the "stub" should probably be written from this perspective. Also, in the beginning of the New Scientist article, it states that the awarded paper is based on an "idea [that] relies on an obscure and largely unrecognized kind of physics". Additionally, the New Scientist article does not appear to state anything conclusive about the theory, and does seem to depict the theory as unproven ( Full text copy here || New Scientist site - paywall ). Steve Quinn (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be fine if you or somebody else would undertake to do the stubbing. The same conclusion was reached in the previous AfD but nobody did anything. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC).
 * OK. Yeah, I would be glad to do it. I can probably do it within the next couple of hours. Also, this is a WP:SNOW, anyway. Also, I just noticed that there may be sources available at the 3rd AfD to help with the stubification and notability. Somehow I missed the third AfD. I did review the firat two, however.
 * (Btw, interesting vocabulary on Wikipedia --> "stubify" and "stubification". But are they ready for the dictionary yet? :>)} Steve Quinn (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What I mean is I can probably get started in the next couple of hours. I don't really how long this will take. As with any article, stub or longer, the ducks must be lined up correctly. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Splendid. You will have my backing for this. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC).
 * Thanks. I have already begun. I am giving your more info about this on your talk page. Don't want to be off topic here. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. It does not seem that anything has changed since the previous AfDs that should warrant another discussion.  The subject does seem to be notable (regardless of its status as a scientific theory).  I am more concerned with the walled garden of Walter Dröscher and Burkhard Heim, individuals who appear only to be notable for their contribution to Heim theory.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2013 (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.