Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Hollingshead


 * 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. W.marsh 17:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Marcus Hollingshead
This garage-built Gravitational Lensing Generator is obviously complete WP:BOLLOCKS. But as we all know, that alone is no reason for deletion.

So I plead: No reliable third-party sources!

Let's dissect the sources (actually external links only) given
 * 2x http://www.americanantigravity.com/
 * 1x OhmyNews, the first of its kind [online newspaper] in the world to accept, edit and publish articles from its readers, in an open source style of news reporting
 * 1x the (in)famous Tajmar preprint, its merit being heavily disputed (Is it accepted for publication? Does a link to the ESA exist or is it only faked?) -- but anyway its content has no relationship to Hollingshead

Pjacobi 21:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable even if pseudoscience. -- Petri Krohn 09:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete a very long way from meeting WP:BIO if the absence of reporting means anything at all (and usually it does). Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not making any observation about the science, but the article lacks any independent reliable and verifiable evidence of notability. Blogs and websites are not sufficient. Edison 20:42, 7 November 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.