Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiple Natures Conjecture

 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 as original research. If/when this topic is more widely publicized and discussed, it may be appropriate to recreate this article. Rossami (talk) 01:02, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Multiple Natures Conjecture
Original "research" --fvw *  17:59, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
 * Not original research. Just heavily POV.  See http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2004-12/msg0065737.html which describes the conjecture as "rather fringe-ish borderline crank-ish". P Ingerson 18:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, it indeed totters on the edge of cranky. Wyss 19:36, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep I am the one who wrote the post on sci.physics.research, a moderated usenet group for research professionals. I said that it is borderline cranky but only because the ideas are so different from the current views in science. If you look at Spinoza or Leibniz, or Julian Barbour or Peter Lynds or Stephen Wolfram, the ideas are already floating around, and have been for a while. There is considerable interest in this unorthodox departure from Newtonian metaphysics. Enough, I think, to justify a wikipedia entry under this title, as it is the only research that ties all of those ideas into a single hypothesis. - MN
 * The ideas have indeed been discussed for at least a century. The notion of a single hypothesis as described in this article is patently original research. Wyss 23:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I would say that the article is formulated in an original way, but its not scientific research. If anything, it is a philosophical conclusion that informs of a new field of scientific research yet to be explored. I would like to think that the ideas are so compelling that they should remain. That is, unless there is something wrong with the conclusions. Is there? - MN


 * Keep, has potential if cleaned up. Megan1967 22:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. -Ld | talk 00:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research by Mike Helland.  --Viriditas  | Talk 09:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. As written, it is original research by Mike Helland.  The only source for this is a link to a longer article on his web site, which also does not have any references. --BM 12:23, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, the longer article does reference Newton's Principia, some article on Leibniz, includes a couple quotes from Einstein, and a link to notebooks on quantum gravity. The paper is not laid out like a professional manuscript, but it does link to relevant web pages. - MN


 * Delete. Original research. Andris 13:37, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mikkalai 23:28, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. Josh Cherry 00:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. DreamGuy 02:30, Jan 2, 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.