Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrogravitics

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 keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electrogravitics

This particular article is essentially an original research synthesis of a variety of ideas related to trying to get electricity to give you anti-gravity. Thomas Townsend Brown is perhaps the major proponent of ideas of this nature, but anything that is worth discussing can be discussed at that article. There is a ridiculous amount of unbridled speculation and unverifiable conjuecturing that is holding the article together right now. I just don't see this as passing fringe muster since it is essentially a hodge-podge and not one singular idea and hasn't received notice as a singular concept from anyone except the true-believers in free energy suppression, perpetual motion, and anti-gravity. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anti-gravity. This is basically a fork of that article. Theymos (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't originally. Uncle G (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I think Mythbusters debunked this idea at some point, and ionocraft seems the most productive potential redirect target. Actual opinion to be rendered after I can sift for gems in the cruft. - Eldereft (cont.) 07:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuild as a pointer to articles that deal with electricity and gravity. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article was already rebuilt once. I rebuilt it. After the rebuild, it looked like this. I recommend reading what was said in the prior AFD discussion, as well as reading what is written at User talk:Uncle G/Archive/2008-01-01#Electro-gravitic propulsion. I note that ScienceApologist has made no attempt to work out the neutrality dispute in the intervening time, with zero edits to either article or talk page, and has simply brought the article back to AFD instead. Uncle G (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reason that stubby paragraph can't be merged to Thomas Townsend Brown. There is no reason for this POV-fork. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you want a merger, then that implies that even you don't want the article deleted, since merger precludes deletion. I note that in the 19 months since that version was written, you made no attempt to suggest merger, on any talk page, in addition to making no edits to the article and no attempt to work out the neutrality dispute with other editors. Uncle G (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatent OR. Shot info (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have once been a notable theory. Yes, there are cleanup issues here, and the sourcing needs a lot of work but I don't see this being any trouble at all for somebody with the relevant journal subscriptions. Here, for example, is a useful mainstream press article explaining the background of the theory. JulesH (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed a lot of OR from the article, leaving behind a kernel of article that seems to me should be possible to back up with appropriate sources. JulesH (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that you read the version of the article linked-to above. The content that you have just marked as needing a citation originally had a citation linked directly to it. The problem with this article is that since April 2007 editors have attempted to portray history backwards, by moving the text around (and breaking the cross-links between text and citations) making it seem as though the conclusions by Priess are contradicted by the Glenn L. Martin Company. In fact, reality is the other way around. But this is a simple neutrality dispute — one in which the nominator here has made zero effort to participate — that is solved by adjusting the article, with the edit button, so that it once more accurately reflects mainstream modern opinion relative the opinion held by a very small minority, not a deletion issue. Uncle G (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a sufficiently distinct subject, and there are sufficient references. But even the current article needs some modifications for NPOV. DGG (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as Electrogravity.Biophys (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book described in this article seems to be another reliable source to go with the ones already presented. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2009 (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.