Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrete Field Model

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discrete Field Model[edit]

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

This is a work of original research and novel narrative, a new theory of the universe, not verifiable in any reputable source. Lumpy27 (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This article is pure original research and novel narrative. The "Discrete Field Model" is a original theory of the universe that is totally unverifiable in any reputable scientific literature. It does not meet the Wikipedia rules for inclusion.Lumpy27 (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article doesn't actually bother defining "discrete field model". Instead, it rambles on about topics the author considers related, citing references that in the cases I checked weren't really related to the text they were cited from. I'm actually wondering if this is a Sokal-style hoax, though for the time being I'll assume it was written with honest intentions. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This theory seems to be the work of one "Peter Jackson" who has submitted a number of papers on the subject to the vixra archive. This implies a few things 1)this Peter Jackson is not affiliated to any scientific institution 2) he has not been able to get any respectable scientist to endorse his work. Moreover none of the papers have been publisher in a scientific journal, nor have they gathered any scientific attention. As such the article fails to meet WP:N and should be deleted. TimothyRias (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No comments here. --Dc987 (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Retain - Firstly, I object to suggestions that I am a man. From some of the comments here - I couldn't bear to loose my intuition. Please refer to my post in the discussion page. It is pure opinion that the viXra web archive is not reputable. There are some iffy papers on almost all sites - and even in Nature Physics, but the DFM papers are not among them. Yes, it moves physics ahead - but nothing in the page is novel, or indeed just 'theory'. I wouldn't have gone to all the effort of writing the page if I didn't believe it was needed and important. Physics is nor static, and wiki would be worthless if IT was.

There is no harm in this paper, indeed many have never seen the important Einstein quotes it contains, which alone makes it important. The DFM exists and must be considered. It would be the very worst form of opinionated censorship to remove it. I won't repeat the points in my discussion entries so please read and consider them carefully. JudithDocjudith (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Supporting Comment. Forgive me guys but the term "Looks like.." just exposes lack of knowledge of the subject, and lack of qualification to make the comment. This is no hoax. I'm aware it runs close to the 'notability' line, but even if it crossed it there is provision for 'occasional exceptions' which, if it did, I'd also argue.

Let me be fully open. I do have added reason for this effort. You'd recognise my maiden name as I'm from a scientific family including a deceased high academic and national body head. I didn't follow and major in physics as such for my own science degrees but closely followed the work and career path. Coming across the DFM was a revelation, finally resolving a massive enigma, and an important one for scientific progress.

Now I well understand that most won't immediately understand the conceptual approach. I was very familiar with the subject matter and past work so it clicked immediately into place. Despite it's simplicity it simply won't do so for most. The fact is it's not a 'new' or 'novel' theory at all! It only uses known physical processes, from across science, and thinks about them more clearly - following Einsteins lead, guidance, and indeed, words. It does indeed also have a very firm and credible part in the history of physics, now with just the last tiny link added, or 'click' of the key to open the door.

The result is a solid proof of Relativity, but finally tidied up into a fully consistent model, to remove paradox, harmonise with QFT and explain a lot of astrophysical anomolies. This should finally remove dissident argument and allow physics to progress. I understand it was indeed offered to a peer review journal and refused (with the 99%+) and the author seems happy to have it web archived and reticent to push further. I think he understands it's massive significance but sees his own role as modest, and also sees how resistant parts of science will be to even studying it. But it's there, in the fluid mix, flowing closely alongside the mainstream, but not yet leading, as ruling paradigms take a long long time to evolve, despite Poppers view, and many are scared of evolution! We had some very positive expert responses - but few dare take a lead yet.

But this discussion shouldn't be about how right the model is. If you have your doubts do some wider homework and flex your brains more conceptually! It undoubtedly and stunningly is about right, if not in every tiny detail. But should it be here? On the very strictest judgement perhaps not, but that's exactly what the notability policy caveat about 'occasional exceptions' is for. I've glanced through the page again, and agree I let my enthusiasm run away a little in the writing. As you're aware, it's a busy time of year, but I'll undertake to do a major clean up/rewrite, re-arrange it and condense it to it's simplest form. And Christopher, the explanation is there, but I'll clarify it. As Einstein said (in a way none of you now could) we "should be able to explain physics to a barmaid"! I hope you'll support me in this. It is important. Docjudith (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whatever the merits of the theory, it has to be published in a reliable source to have an article. Vixra has to be assumed equivalent to self-publication, and is not sufficient to establish notability. I suggest waiting until it has been published in a reliable source, or at least until a few WP:IRS cite it. Paradoctor (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2010 (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.