Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selfconsistent gravidynamic constants

Selfconsistent gravidynamic constants

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

These are a walled garden of articles all created and written by the same editor, 195.47.212.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). (Another article in this series, "Selfconsistent electromagnetic constants" was just deleted here.)

The articles Selfconsistent gravidynamic constants, Gravitational characteristic impedance of free space, Quantum Hall composite resonator, Quantum Gravitational Resonator are pure WP:OR and WP:SYN; they don't exist outside of wikipedia (plus maybe fringe sources). The article Maxwell-like gravitational equations should be deleted and redirected to gravitomagnetism; it's the same topic as gravitomagnetism but primarily WP:OR and WP:SYN. Stoney mass should be redirected to Stoney scale units, it's a real thing but not sufficiently notable on its own; most of the article is OR instead. Quantum inductance is a real concept, but completely unrelated to anything in the article. For example, the first reference in that article doesn't even mention quantum inductance. Maybe a quantum inductance article could exist on wikipedia someday, but it should be started from scratch. Quantum Electromagnetic Resonator should be deleted and redirected to Quantum LC Circuit, almost the whole article is OR, and what isn't is discussed in Quantum LC Circuit. (Quantum LC Circuit has problems of its own, thanks to the same IP, but that's another story.)

There are two other articles created by this IP that I didn't nominate: Quantum capacitance and Stoney scale units. Both are primarily OR, but contain a little bit of correct information on (slightly) notable topics. They could in principle be turned into decent stubs by deleting the OR that comprises most of the articles. So I didn't nominate them. --Steve (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I am very suspicious of anything that contains quantum mechanics, gravity and light in the same set of thinking. If this was notable, it would be headline news in physics. Martin451 (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete + Userfy + Merge I have spent several hours trying to examine these articles and compare them with standard reference materials and notable current research. I admit and disclose that I do not have sufficient expertise to judge the accuracy of each of the many equations used in these articles. The overall conclusion I have reached is that these articles are original research presenting a non-mainstream view of their topic. The author seems to be trying to recontextualize both QFT and GR from the perspective of the traditional analysis of electromagnetism used in electrical engineering. This is definitely an area of real research, with relevance to the development of quantum computers among other things, but these articles do not represent a description of mainstream scientific consensus, which is the purpose of our encyclopedia. I think some of these could be moved to userspace and the editor could work on integrating the non-OR material into relevant articles in cooperation with other expert editors, if they demonstrate an understanding of the importance of avoiding original synthesis and non-mainstream POV. Ben Kidwell (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge all these articles as per nominator. They are original research on mostly fringe material. They are worse than scientifically worthless because they promote the impression that they are mainstream and are likely to mislead non-experts into thinking that the articles are authoritative. I am disturbed that there are so many Ghits to these articles already. I should add that I think that although Wikipedia science articles should be based on the culture of mainstream science, there is room for fringe material in Wikipedia provided that a) It is notable b) It identifies itself as fringe. These articles satisfy neither condition. The anon's exposition of his ideas would be better placed in a blog or a user group than in Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete and Merge as Appropriate This AfD is a rather complex one but the reasoning of the nominator seems sound. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but mine the articles for any useful, sourced material and sources that can be added to the other articles. The anon author has clearly done a lot of research, and Wikipedia should take advantage of the sourced material if it would contribute to existing articles. Of course, the main theses are WP:OR and therefore cannot, and should not, be published in Wikipedia. Finell (Talk) 21:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all but do not salt - some of these are viable concepts for articles, but would need to be rewritten from scratch. There does not seem to be any salvageable referenced material here, but go ahead and mine it if you can find anything that is properly sourced rather than idiosyncratic original research or near-tautology. Stoney mass should be redirected to Stoney scale units; the latter is in dire need of cleaning and referencing, but I think the article is probably viable (or at least is a mergeto candidate for Natural units). Quantum Electromagnetic Resonator should be deleted and redirected per nom, but I am not sure that Maxwell-like gravitational equations is a likely enough search term to warrant a redirect. See also this WP:PHYS discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I've looked them all and they do appear as someone uses wikipedia for publishing his/her (LC-resonator-like) vision of physics. Yes, some of those articles could be rewritten, but I would do that from scratch and not use present information. Materialscientist (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except keep or userfy Gravitational characteristic impedance of free space, which appears to make some sense. The rest are WP:OR mixed with non-notable psuedo-science. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diffuse and delete Scour for anything worthy (if anything worthy exists), then delete the rest. Yeah dude, PowerUserPCDude was here (yeah) (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]