Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superrelativity


 * 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. Scarian Call me Pat!  15:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Superrelativity

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems to have no sources except self-published and a dedicated .org. Main authors are creator of theory, and an account which is dedicated to that theory and its author. I believe that Super Relativity is different from Superrelativity, the former seems to have sources, and the latter being a non-notable interpretation of the former. See also edit summary of page here. If this were not so, I would assume that the editor would have started out with a notable source like this. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:OR, WP:FRINGE. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing links I will add it among others. This is one of many TOE's, but one wich has gained already some recognition in the theoretical field. Also the notation is generic to supergravity and superstring, both other theories in the same field. Also the article should include all improvements to einstein's relativity, from any author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyCreemers (talk • contribs)
 * So you're saying, rather than delete we should expand? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do so. I am doing my part in litterally letting hundreds of engineer students to seek for more information on the subject.I will add the new links soon . This is also why I call it superrelativity so not to only include Mr. Fiorentino's work — Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyCreemers (talk • contribs)


 * Keep, but needs cleanup and a few more sources. Time magazine covered the topic in 1950, and Google Scholar has a number of hits for this term. Will need cleanup to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYN, but it has potential. — BradV  04:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

More links have been added, including one that in fact refers to superrelativity as a possible final theory itself --BennyCreemers (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. There seems to be a great deal of confusion surrounding this article. There are at least three things being mixed up here:
 * The Time article which Bradv found above appears to have been covering general relativity - the use of "super-relativity" in the title seems to have been an embellishment by the writer. Ignore it.
 * The primary subject of this article right now appears to be a fringe theory of "super-relativity" by Mark Fiorentino. I was unable to find any published papers by him, so I'd probably conclude that it's non-notable. (As a general note, established physicists generally publish their theories in scientific journals, not in writers' communities.)
 * However, there is also an unrelated theory of super-relativity by Peter Leifer which has been published. I don't know much about this one, but if someone can rewrite this article to cover Leifer's theory, I'll happily change my vote to a keep.
 * Zetawoof(&zeta;) 06:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah... I thought there was something fishy going on. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 06:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a fringe theory, perhaps not. But it deserves to be on wiki, as much as Heim theory and other fringe theories. Or at least further referenced with Einstein and Tesla biographies and such for everything to be fully accounted for. Furthermore this has not been accepted by scientific journals at all because of the radicality of the concept and the miscommunication from Mr. Fiorentino about his "aether" concept wich is actually a 5th dimension concept. I would also like to see more of Mr. Leifer's theory. It's gonna be have to kept for this to happen however. As is stated in the article and also on a swiftly deleted page about him, he was a longtime software engineer, and an awarded trouble-shooter at IBM. He has also been a philosopher, not a physicist, for more than 20 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyCreemers (talk • contribs) 06:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Best way to get it kept is to go and gather as many mainstream sources about it as you can. About both the theories.  Even a small piece about it in a mainstream source should be enough.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 08:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete; I've seen more coherent technobabble in Star Trek. Complete original research at best.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Coren (and I'd say "Star Wars"). The current article is pure mumbo-jumbo. If there is a substantial theory out there, we can always recreate the article without the burden of this nonsense. 5-dimensionally collapsed micro black holes should raise a red flag... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Luk  suh  17:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. and Zetawoof. JohnCD (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

So these are not multidimensional mumbo jumbo, wich has not yet been verified by experimental facts?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterotic_string, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_exceptionally_simple_theory_of_everything, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything e.a. I would expect that all physically unverified theories be treated the same on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.84.166 (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia does not treat all "physically unverified theories" the same (apart from the fact that it is unclear what exactly that should mean). Wikipedia requires notability. As a minimum, there must be multiple verifiable reliable sources about a topic for it to be covered. Also, of course, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

For a superrelativity topic in general, there are already sufficient sources. For a Super Relativity subsection there are already two, unconnected sources. These sources are identifiable and verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.84.166 (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, I would like to enter this discussion, I read what you wrote, first of all something is science until the theory is falsified. Did you do the research to falsify this theory? When you did not do any research in this field I would like to argue if you have the right to vote for a deletion of this theory.
 * I do not have a bachelor or master in physics, my field is economics. However I do like Mr. Fiorentino clear and bright view on this subject. A fact superrelativity is the word/ term for the theory which is written on this page, a deletion should be based on false statements not on opinion. --User:81.204.195.145 (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: this is this IP editor's first edit. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. No encyclopedic notability, scientific or otherwise. And, with respect to User:Zetawoof, I think this should apply even if the article is rewritten to cover P. Leifer's work unless lay notability is asserted or himself passes WP:PROF. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 21:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable, and no assertion of notability. Dlabtot (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongest delete this awful nonsense -- fails everything, original research, neologism, no verifiablity, no notability, no reliable sources, fringe theory, you name it. In fact as far as I am concerned this is a clear speedy candidate.  The contents themselves are just abject nonsense.  (And 'super' does not mean better, by the way.) Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a speedy nom before. Nonsense and fringe aren't good reasons to delete, but as you say, the others are. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. As noted by Zetawoof, this appears to be unnotable, as well as OR. Peter Liefer's theory also does not appear yet to meet notability requirements. Hal peridol (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

--MarkFiorentino (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, Hello, I am the author of the theory and I would ask that this article be kept or at least remain in a probationary status until I can complete work on this topic within Wikipedia. I can supply references as well as much more detail as to what the theory is about if given a chance to do so. It is a work in progress. Is there a way to keep it in a hidden mode and then be able to submit it for review when it is completed? I believe that this work is very relevant and useful information and that is worthy of this online encyclopedia. I think that it is a thought provoking topic with much to add to the ongoing debate between the deterministic philosophies of the past versus the more popular Quantum and String theories of today.


 * Yes, all you have to do is edit your userpage, and put /Superrelativity in it, and save. Then click on the link to edit.  Paste in all the code from Superrelativity, . That will perserve it till mainstream sources can be found. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a quantum theory. This is the improved General Relativity theory explaining this/this. Everybody should read everything before they decide to vote —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.79.71 (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsourced OR. Abecedare (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete in view of no proper sourcing. First publish in a serious journal (if that is possible!) and wait until other authors have cited it. Harald88 (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * delete per everyone else. "The more popular Quantum and String theories of today" belong on Quantum mysticism. dab (𒁳) 19:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you don't need General Relativity to explain Biogas, and not even Einstein could explain Fox News. Am I missing something? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Einstein explained Fox News rather thoroughly: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Zetawoof(&zeta;) 02:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as patent orginal research, with a whiff of Time Cube B figura  (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Incoherent OR. Tone and history of updates by two SPAs suggests it is a vanity article. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete As Zetawoof pointed out above, this appears to be a fringe theory or original research hiding behind two similarly-named but essentially unconnected published theories. Cosmo0 (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Stephan Schulz, please everybody get your facts straight. This is the magnegas where they use this to make this —Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyCreemers (talk • contribs) 23:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "This" is a well-know process and needs no new theory to explain (except that someone needs to smack the reporter for falling for the "just drill a landfill" spiel), and "this" is an unreviewed arXiv paper by a known kook which is part trivial and part technobabble. Anyways, the "paper" does not even mention relativity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep with Rewrite. I originally prodded this article. But on second thought I think the topic is actually valid, based on and . That said.... although the topic may be valid, the current article on the topic is atrocious, and I think that is why I (and many others) have been jumping to their delete guns. It can't be allowed to stand in its current state, but I think its open to being rescued by someone who knows what they are talking about and has some sense of proper style. --SJK (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Both those articles are by Peter Leifer, whose theory is currently not the topic of this article, and which may not be particularly notable to begin with. See my comments above. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 21:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmfiore(Mmfiore;) 02:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and Complete. Hello all, I would like to thank everyone for their interest and comments about the Super Relativity topic. Since there is a great concern about this article. I will set my attention to getting the article into shape as soon as I can. This article is by no means completed yet, so I apologize for that. I have been working at breakneck pace on the book about the same topic so I have been tied up with that project. Unfortunately there seems to be no way to keep an article in a hidden view until it is ready. In order to save the topic here on Wikipedia I will stop work for the next few days and work on this article for wikipedia.

Thank you, Stephan for the kook's link but maybe he is not a 'kook' after all. SR should also explain this as is stated here


 * The electrolysis of water is a rather well-understood process. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 23:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it really? I must contend there are at least some properties of OH- that are not accounted for, as is stated here and here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.79.71 (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, it encorporates an explanation for Wardenclyffe, Tachyon and Dark Matter in its electromechanistical concept --BennyCreemers (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I would advise you to put the article under your user page (userspace, userfy) -before it is deleted. Complete it with mainstream sources at your leasure, then re-create the article. If you find the sources. See instructions on doing that I gave above. If that's done, the closing admin could perhaps note that this is what is going on. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE. Quote:
 * "I have chosen six of the most influential individuals that were involved in the development of the theory, they are Rene Descates ,Isaac Newton, James Clerck Maxwell, Hendrick Antoon Lorentz, and Albert Einstein. In the book due to be released in late 2009. The theory discusses the work of the scientists stated above. It points out that all of these brilliant individuals very successful theories were achieved on the basis of ether theory. The book also establishes and highlights the critical differences and enhancements to ether theory that SR Theory possesses."

DVdm (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Martin, I think that you have an excellent suggestion and I will do what you suggested. I believe to get the job done properly it will take me at least 2 weeks to do and I am really up against the wall with writing the book. Thank you for the good idea.Mmfiore(Mmfiore;) 02:35, 8 April 2008 (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.