Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ORMUS

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. &mdash; J I P | Talk 17:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

ORMUS
Anti-gravity properties. Super-conducting at room temperature. Philosopher's stone. Pseudo-science, crank, fake - surely? -- RHaworth 11:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Response from author: At issue here is wether a discovery which has yet to be validated by the scientific community is indeed Pseudo-science or a discovery with merit that has yet to be validated by the scientific community and become part of common knowledge.

I argue that the entry should be allowed to facilitate discussions in this regard. It is possible that ultimately, the claim will be dismissed as fraudulent and the entry for ORMUS may then show this fact to the benefit of everyone. Alternatively, a new branch of physics is about to open up. Without this entry, neither of these results are possible. User:freddie10538 21 September 2005

Note from Author: I concede and note the above points. If I were a physicist instead of just a high-school grad... :-)
 * Delete I think it's obviously absurd. But, even if it were serious, wikipedia isn't the place for garning scientific discussion on proposed theories.   --rob 12:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete If this is true, then a new branch of Physics will open up whether or not there's a wiki article. Dlyons493 12:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR until validated by the scientific community and/or part of common knowledge. Isn't it nice when the author hands you the entire rationale?  &mdash; Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yah, I love it. It's like "You gotta let my band have an article on wiki because nobody will know we exist if you don't."  --rob 13:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Until it's verified by the no-doubt-fascinated scientific community, I'd say delete.Vizjim 13:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Even though I'm sure that the article's creator will look on this as just more Stifling Establishment Censorship, I vote delete. DS 14:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn Pseudo-science --Vsion 18:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Mkfzt? Blb fnxt! Delete. Denni &#9775; 02:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- nn pseudoscience, not to mention possible original research. Haikupoet 02:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, per all of the above. -- BD2412 talk 02:27, 23 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.