Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamic theory of gravity

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 redirect to Nikola Tesla, feel free to merge any sourced content not already present at the target article. WjBscribe 23:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic theory of gravity

Original research. No reliable sources. Next to nothing is known about this theory, because it wasn't ever published! The article is an essay what it might has been. --Pjacobi 17:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ Looking at the various test cases documented in WP:FRINGE, I think that the precedent for topics like this (a non-notable idea connected to a notable person) is to describe the fringe topic, briefly, within the person's article. A paragraph or so in Nikola Tesla should do the trick. Of course, that paragraph should report only what reliable sources have said about Tesla's "theory", not what people can extemporaneously ad-lib about it. Anville 18:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to redirect per Cromdog. Anville 16:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nikola Tesla - It covers this topic at least as well as this article does. --EMS (talk) 18:15, April 18, 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. The section in Tesla's article needs some rewriting, but it does look just about as good as Dynamic theory of gravity. Anville 18:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nikola Tesla. It's a better solution than just deleting the topic name, since people might actual attempt to look up the theory sometime.Cromdog 04:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable fringe theory, but the article has been attacked since shortly after it's creation. In the least, redirect and keep available information. J. D. Redding 02:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC) [ps., why push the POV Pjacobi? you been trying, IIRC, to delete this article for some time now ...][reply]

Redirect. No basis for a separate article. - mako 04:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: semi-notable fringe from a notable individual, too big a topic to condense into the 1-2 paragraphs that would be required for a merge. Could do with a clean up thought. - perfectblue 14:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You should see Nikola Tesla#Field theories, which covers the same ground and gives it much more than a paragraph or two of coverage. --EMS | Talk 00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per perfectblue.Biophys 19:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering whether the Keep-voters have read the article. The theory's existence was announced in a press release, the theory itself was never published. How is one supposed to write an article about an unpublished theory? --Pjacobi 20:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Like Pjacobi, I have to wonder if the keep opinions actually read the article. The nomination covers the two main problems, WP:NOR and WP:V. WP:SOAP would be equally relevant. WP:BOLLOCKS covers this in a single serving of alphabet soup. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - While I approve of doing a redirect, I do not think that WP:BOLLOCKS applies here. Tesla did announce this, and it did create a stir in the press. That the theory itself (if it existed) was bollocks is another issue. The issue is rather one of whether this supposed theory is notable enough to merit its own article, instead of only being mentioned in the Nikola Tesla article. As I indicated above, I do not see that it is. --EMS | Talk 00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Someguy1221 01:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect the article name. WP:FRINGE topic for which there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the WP:FRINGE topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and cannot meet Wikipedia article policy standards. -- Jreferee 22:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per perfectblue or merge. Yes, I read the article. Can't see why it should be deleted. Is historically interesting, and is exactly the sort of thing that should be kept in the world's most comprehensive encyclopedia. SmokeyJoe 00:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Have you read the section in Tesla's article on this alledged theory? That is what matters. The issue is not whether this alledged theory should be discussed in Wikipedia, but where. --EMS | Talk 20:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. A merge would be fine, but I'd like that to be debated and done by editors involved. SmokeyJoe 00:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.