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

Strong gravitational constant

AfDs for this article:

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

Strong gravitational constant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

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:

• ANI discussion
• COI discussion
• My request to closing admin of first AfD

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)

• Strong delete -- Non-notable fringe physics, presented as uncontroversial truth by someone with the worst conflict of interest. This is a clear-cut case. --Steve (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply -- Steve, the text in the article sound so: "The strong gravitational constant, denoted $~\;\;\Gamma$ or $~G_{s}$, is alleged physical constant of strong gravitation"...

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)

• 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)
• 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 Strong gravity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was copied from Strong gravitational constant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 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)
  • Reply Do you speak about strong gravity or about strong gravitational constant? If you speak about strong gravity then according to efforts of Bm gub was proved that this theory is (possibly) non-mainstream and not fringe (see discussion). On the other hand strong gravitational constant is article supporting the article strong gravity. Fedosin (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Fedosin (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Fedosin (talk) 07:57, 15 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)
  • Reply The book: Fedosin S.G. Fizika i filosofiia podobiia: ot preonov do metagalaktik, Perm, (1999-06-09) 544 pp. ISBN 5-8131-0012-1 was discussed at Perm state university and at Perm state technical university. There are two official reviews of Prof. Dr. A.I. Saralov to the book, and report of Rector of Perm state technical university V.Yu. Petrov to the book, which help for participation of the book in Perm regional competition of scientific works (papers) in 1999 and 2003. The book: Fedosin S.G. Fizicheskie teorii i beskonechnaia vlozhennost’ materii. – Perm, 2009, 844 pages, Tabl. 21, Pic. 41, Ref. 289. ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0. (in Russian) has two official reviews: from Docent Dr. V.M. Deev of Perm state pedagogical university and from Docent Dr. I.L. Volhin of Perm state university. The theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter was partly developed in the book: Fedosin S.G. Osnovy sinkretiki: filosofiia nositeleĭ. – Moskva: Editorial URSS, 2003, 464 pages. ISBN 5-354-00375-X. in Russian. This book has three official reviews: of Prof. Dr. V.N. Zheleznuak, of Prof. Dr. O.A. Barg, and Docent Dr. A.L. Zhulanov. The book: Fedosin S.G. Sovremennye problemy fiziki: v poiskakh novykh printsipov. Moskva: Editorial URSS, 2002, 192 pages. ISBN 5-8360-0435-8 contains articles: Equations of gravitational field in theory of relativity; Moment of momentum and radius of proton; Gravitation and black holes in special relativity. The book has review of Dr. A. S. Kim. Fedosin (talk) 06:15, 16 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).

• 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)