Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of Elementary Waves


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Theory of Elementary Waves

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Stub article about a little-known fringe physics theory. I initially cleaned out a bunch of non-reliable source citations to postings on personal web sites and discussion forums. After doing this I realized that this left little beyond the works of the theory's author and some external links to sites promoting the theory. My initial searching turned up nothing useful. I'm not an expert on either quantum physics or fringe science, so perhaps there is more to be found, but given that the page has been tagged for notability since July, I'm doubtful. RL0919 (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The original author of the article has posted a somewhat lengthy reply on his user talk page and on the article talk page. To avoid repetition, I have replied to him there and asked him to bring any further arguments against deletion here. --RL0919 (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment&mdash;There are a few independent scholarly mentions of Professor Little's approach: Kurakin (2005); Kurakin, Malinetskii and Bloom (2005); Boyd (2010). However, I couldn't find any mention in a peer reviewed journal other than the original work by Dr. Little. There was a follow-up talk about the "Innsbruck experiment".&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Move/rename this version to Lewis Earl Little (currently a redirect page).Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Move/rename As suggested by Hodja Nasreddin above. Guy Macon (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Insufficient notability is shown. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete. Fringe, for all it looks like. See here and here. Almost all other links seem to be articles or books written by Little. Nageh (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete.


 * The author of this page (See User talk:Jeffrey Boyd) says:
 * "I am submitting scholarly articles to scholarly physics journals, and sooner or later an article will be published."


 * "...our research team is developing TEW to a more robust theory, but I can't prove that to Wikipedia's satisfaction because we have not yet published"


 * "Give us another two years then revisit the question of deletion (by then more will be in print)"


 * Considering WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, the article should be deleted, and the author would then be welcome to create it again when and if he gets published and can show that he meets Wikipedia's standards for notability and verifiability. Guy Macon (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - whole forests have been destroyed to submit articles that claim to refute Quantum mechanics, mine included. When this theory gets published in either a scholarly journal, or gets in the news as a fringe theory, then it will be notable enough in either case for inclusion in Wikipedia.  If this were provable, it would make the headlines of every major newspaper.  Until then, it's not notable.  An incomplete theory would also likely be unready for inclusion. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2011 (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.