Testwiki:Articles for deletion/Strong gravitational constant (2nd nomination)

From testwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. The people who want to keep this as a separate article seem to be those with a conflict of interest. Consensus is that any content related to this topic should ba at Strong gravity, and written by people who do not have a personal interest in the matter.  Sandstein  05:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Strong gravitational constant

AfDs for this article:

    The given page title was invalid or had an inter-language or inter-wiki prefix.

    It may contain one or more characters that cannot be used in titles.

Template:La – (View log)
(Template:Find sources)

This article violates WP:OR and WP:COI. Attempts to redirect the article title to a new article Strong gravity have been disputed by w:User:fedosin, whose own theories are expounded at length in the current state of the article. Some relevant discussions of this topic elsewhere:

I realize that an AfD is not the way to request a simple re-direct, and I am requesting more than a re-direct. I think this article should in fact be deleted; it is full of material that does not belong in Wikipedia. betsythedevine (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

From here, Strong gravitational constant is supposed constant, which appears in papers of different authors. Why do you think that the text is presented as uncontroversial truth? Fedosin (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the word "alleged" is in the first sentence, that's good. But "alleged" is only one word. Every other word in the article presents the idea of strong gravity as uncontroversial truth. The only controversies discussed are controversies within the theory, e.g. what is the numerical value of the constant. This is a minor point, because in theory, bias can be removed by rewriting instead of deleting. The real problem is that this is non-notable fringe physics. --Steve (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Reply About uncontroversial truth. There is another phrase: "It is assumed, that in contrast to the usual force of gravity, at the level of elementary particles acts strong gravity". Then there are some attempts to define or assess the value of Strong gravitational constant. It is the truth only that till now we have no generally accepted the numerical value of the constant. I think the controversy come from a lack of our knowledge. Fedosin (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. WP:OR and WP:COI are not by themselves grounds for deletion. WP:OR/WP:SYNTH can of course support a recommendation for deletion if the whole article is solely OR, and it is clearly not possible to solve the issues by the normal Wikipedia process. Is the claim that this is the case here? Based on the Google scholar hits, the topic appears to be notable enough.  --Lambiam 17:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Reply The part of WP:OR relevant to this article, which is an incomprehensible jungle of equations sourced to physics research by the article's creator, is ""Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Could an article be written about this material? An article has been written about this material, and you can find that article at Strong gravity, to which this article title should re-direct. betsythedevine (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Reply to Reply. At the moment the article Strong gravity is a stub because it contained only part of history of development of idea of gravitation at particle level. Can any educated person, with access to the sources in Strong gravity but without special knowledge, be able to verify what is now means about strong gravity and strong gravitational constant? Of course not. The idea of redirection was already discussed and is not good, see examples with gravitation and gravitational constant, and with Fermi's interaction and Fermi constant. Redirection in last case take place because of absence of article Fermi constant only. May be you see in the article jungle of equations. Of course mathematical equations are second and special symbolic language and you do not need to know it. But this language is very punctual and useful.Fedosin (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. The notable aspect of strong gravity is that it was a topic of interest in the misty early days of QCD and/or the later, decaying days of old-style grand unification. I think we have that under control at strong gravity. This article is User:Fedosin's POV fork. The purported "constant" is something that barely appears, if at all, in mainstream theory papers which are focused on confinement. (The "constant" is, on the other hand, the main feature---perhaps the only feature---of all of the WP:FRINGE references, where they "compute" it via various mutually-contradictory dimensional analyses.) To support this constant, Fedosin is citing his own pet theory (thus the COI and OR), which is one of a dozen or so WP:FRINGE theories (thus NN and RS) which Fedosin is trying to synthesize (OR) into something that sounds like "hey, here's the glorious theory of strong gravity which is really quite well-worked-out, consistent, and important, and which I will later tie in with my pet Fractal cosmology theory that was deleted before." I have followed all of the references carefully (see the talk page), and there's nothing here that passes WP:FRINGE scrutiny (except the bit that I forked to strong gravity). Bm gub (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Reply. I do not agree. The article not about strong gravity, it is more about strong gravitational constant. What does mean: This article is User:Fedosin's POV fork? In the article arranged only data which are in scientific papers about strong gravitational constatnt. It is not my imagination it is fact. Also I do not agree when you say that: “The "constant" is, on the other hand, the main feature---perhaps the only feature---of all of the WP:FRINGE references, where they "compute" it via various mutually-contradictory dimensional analyses”. As you see the constant is in references:
  1. Sivaram, C. and Sinha, K.P. Strong gravity, black holes, and hadrons. Physical Review D, 1977, Vol. 16, Issue 6, P. 1975-1978.
  2. Salam A. and Sivaram C. Strong Gravity Approach to QCD and Confinement. Mod. Phys. Lett., 1993, v. A8(4), 321–326.
  3. Strong Interactions, Gravitation and Cosmology. Abdus Salam Publ. in: NATO Advanced Study Institute, Erice, June16-July 6, 1972 ; in: High Energy Astrophysics and its Relation to Elementary Particle Physics, 441-452 MIT Press, Cambridge (1974).
  4. K. Tennakone. Electron, muon, proton, and strong gravity. Phys. Rev. D, 1974, Volume 10, Issue 6, P.1722–1725.
  5. Stanislav Fisenko & Igor Fisenko. The Conception of Thermonuclear Reactor on the Principle of Gravitational Confinement of Dense High-temperature Plasma. Applied Physics Research, November 2010, Vol. 2, No. 2, P. 71 -79.
  6. S. I. Fisenko, M. M. Beilinson and B. G. Umanov. Some notes on the concept of “strong” gravitation and possibilities of its experimental investigation. Physics Letters A, Volume 148, Issues 8-9, 3 September 1990, Pages 405-407.

By your own words this authors just not fringe and so references to their papers are suitable. Your words about “mutually-contradictory dimensional analyses” mostly addressed to my data in the article and are wrong. Reference to Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter was done only in order to explain how is it possible to think about strong gravity in simple and natural way. I may be give more information about my own vision and applications of strong gravitational constant. But it was only because I well know the question in my own direction of investigation. I am sure other authors can add their thoughts and ideas about their applications of strong gravitational constant, or may be it could be done other users better then me.Fedosin (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Fedosin (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete as POV fork; generally per Bm gub. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. During the discussion was a question to Bm gub: have you refeences where is proved that idea of Strong gravitational constant is fringe? There were other questions for him : Can you give evidence that Fedosin, Oldershaw, Stone, Perng, and Dufour are the fringe authors? Have you references where it is proved ? Up to now we have not any references about. So it is only personal position of Bm gub, no more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedosin (talk • contribs) 04:45, 14 April 2011
  • Comment the article Template:La was copied from Template:La so a simple delete will not suffice, if this is deleted, then the article history for strong gravity needs to be severed from this article and attached to that one from the version where it was copied. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment. I don't know if it helps, but the present content of strong gravity has a clean history starting at [1]; I copied it there from content suggested by this edit: [2]. Bm gub (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
If "strong gravitational constant" is simply deleted, then "strong gravity" will be missing the edit history of everything up to the point you copied it from. A history merge, or a redirect from this page name needs to be implemented. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete it's not our job to prove that this theory is fringe. It is the editor's job to prove that it isn't. He's failed. Rklawton (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • weak delete There are notable fringe theories. And the line between fringe and non-fringe can be blurry (and this is an example where exactly where it falls might even be arguable). But at the end of the day, there's no notability to the claims, merely the ideas of a single author. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rklawton says it for me. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC).
  • Neutral - I think the nomination is slightly misstated firstly WP:OR doesn't come into it, as the Material is not being published here in the first instance - It has all been reliably published in journals and books and the content is properly sourced to them. There is a WP:COI but that in its self is not grounds for deletion. The biggest questions should be can this theory be independently verified, and can we represent it neutrally as a notable fringe theory? To answer, we need reliable sources by third parties discussing the material at hand, whilst these do not exist in English (or romanised Russian) it is clear that all this material was all initially printed in cyrillic Russian and the possibility exists that any reliable third party sources may also exist in this form. I would ask the article writer to provide any sources (in any language) that show his material has been subject of Peer Review or general independent coverage within or without the scientific community. Failing that my vote would be a delete. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
What does this prove? Google Scholar shows that the work of S G Fedosin has cites of 5, 5, 1, 1, of which 8 are self-citations, showing that it has had little impact on the scientific community. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC).
I hope search in Russian domain give more results.Fedosin (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
GS cites Russian sources. Do the search yourself and tell us what you get. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC).
Scholar shows 16, 5, 1, 1 cites for СГ Федосин but 10 of those 16 are other works by СГ Федосин Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 05:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Introduction of a strong gravitational constant in the quantum area in itself does not result in something essential. However, acknowledgement of this fact is a base for further development of the concept of strong gravitational interaction as a gravitational interaction on quantum level. In my view this justifies keeping the article Strong gravitational constant. I have provided more comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strong_gravitational_constant#Modern_strong_gravity --Sfisenko (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment. Sfisenko is a single-purpose account which shares a name with one of the authors cited in the article. That's funny, the last time I participated in a Fedosin related AfD [3], two of the cited fringe authors just so happened to log in there too. Fedosin, please read Wikipedia's policies on canvassing and meatpuppets. Bm gub (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply As I already explained at Noticeboard, there were some e-mails with invitations to discuss the article. Fisenko was one who received such e-mail and he was ready to prepare his comment to the end of the week. From this I conclude that Sfisenko is real account of Stanislav Fisenko. Fedosin (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Merge to Strong gravity (!vote revised 23:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC) )—I have no intrinsic problem with the existence of an article on this topic, as long as the length and content of the article are sufficient to justify existence as a complete article rather than a section in the Strong gravity article. The key issue here is not the existence of the article, but the content. If there has been inappropriate interference with editing of the article content in line with Wikipedia policy, that is a problem that needs to be taken up elsewhere. It does sound like there is the potential for a conflict of interest issue here, but I won't weigh in deeper than just making that observation. Keep the article and get it into shape rather than deleting it. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    comment. I don't think there's anything that's possible to get into shape. The only people on Earth who are interested in this purported "constant" are the fringe authors who think that they've calculated it and thereby solved the Grand Unification problem. Fisenko's objection on this point was quite correct; when I tried to remove the unreliable sources, the little I had left was no longer an article about the "strong gravitational constant" at all. At the moment, I think no such article is possible. Bm gub (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    comment. The way that someone would "get the article into shape" is by reading reliable, published secondary sources on the topic of this article. There is none. The closest anyone has come to finding any "secondary source", is Russian-language reviews of Fedosin's book. Therefore you are asking the impossible. Also, I don't see how you separate "existence" and "content". If every single sentence in an article ought to be deleted, then the whole article ought to be deleted. This is not a debate about creation protection: Someone else can still write an article with this title from scratch. :-) --Steve (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    comment — Let's assume for a moment that strong gravity exists as a force. Therefore, it follows that a formulaic representation of strong gravity as a force exists. At present, there is no formulaic representation of the strong gravity force in the article on the topic. If this is due to there being no supporting material which posits in a reliable manner that formulaic representation, then all discussion of the strong gravitational constant is moot because it must necessarily rely upon that representation and the article on the constant should be deleted. If, however, there has been a reliably related formulaic representation, then the question becomes one of whether there is as part of that representation a constant unique to strong gravity, then whether there is sufficient information reliably related which supports the composition of verifiable content, then whether there is sufficient verifiable content to support a stand alone article or not. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • KEEP. Its existence is real. It is a serious and vital grand unified fundamental physical constant. If it is not existing- 'existence of massive atom' or ' 'existence of massive elementary particle' is doubtful and meaningless. Please note that till today no fundamental theory makes a comment on the 'origin of mass' of atoms and elementary particles. Here the very important question to be answered is – which is more fundamental either G or Gs ? It is proposed that both can be considered as the 'head' and 'tail' of matter coin. It can also be suggested that classical G is a consequence of the existence of atomic Gs. It is known that there is a difference in between 'absolute findings' and 'absolute measurements'. Absolute findings can be understood where as 'absolute measurements' can not be made by nuclear experiments which are being conducted under the sky of universal gravity with 'unknown' origin of elementary particles mass. I humbly request the science community to kindly look into this issue.User:seshavatharam.uvs
    • Comment -- User:seshavatharam.uvs is presumably UVS Seshavatharam, someone who is doing research in this field, and whose paper is cited in the article. Like Sfisenko above, they were presumably canvassed by Fedosin by email. Everyone is welcome to fairly consider seshavatharam.uvs's opinion, but we should be aware of this context. --Steve (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment -- User:seshavatharam.uvs , User:Sfisenko , User:Fedosin , User:Robert a stone jr -- they are authors of papers which are referenced in the article. Their opinion is important for that their ideas was not distorted by some users which discussing the article. Fedosin (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article loses a great deal of credibility with a lengthy polemic section entitled "Its existence is true and real". Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment We do have an article Strong gravity, which gives an account of early work on the idea. At the moment, Strong gravitational constant recounts some related modern work. One key question is whether there exist any respectably published secondary sources that review or analyze or evaluate the research papers of Fedosin, Fisenko, Seshavatharam, or Robert A Stone. A second key question is whether there exists so much notable material about this work that it needs its own article separate from Strong gravity. If this material should be covered in Wikipedia, I hope that experienced Wikipedians and physicists will help the authors get it into shape as a respectably worded encyclopedia article. betsythedevine (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge and cleanup per Betsy and joshuaZ. Without addressing the question of notability (or the difference b/t fringe and other science), there is not currently enough published work on the topic to merit a separate article. –SJ+ 04:44, 19 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.beta.math.wmflabs.org/w/index.php?title=Testwiki:Articles_for_deletion/Strong_gravitational_constant_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=33383"