Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bimetric gravity

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. There seems to be general agreement that the subject is notable, but that the article recently has been hijacked to promote a particular POV. There is also agreement to revert to a previous stable version. How to handle the POV editing can be discussed on the article talk page. Randykitty (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bimetric gravity[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Propaganda for Jean-Pierre Petit. Yann (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but revert This used to be a decent article as recently as last month, before it got taken over by all the Jean-Pierre Petit stuff. I'd propose just reverting the article back to the December 7, 2018 version. Red Act (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert per the above. The topic is legitimate and notable, going back to work by Einstein's collaborator Nathan Rosen in the 1940s. Recent changes have taken the article downhill, but deletion is not the answer. XOR'easter (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and revert per the above. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is the most recent version that looks reasonable (2018-12-07). XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, note that the additions since then have been made by anon IPs from Paris, including 145.242.20.220, 80.214.73.185, 80.215.96.179 and 80.215.224.16 (who has promoted Jean-Pierre Petit elsewhere). XOR'easter (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but improve the content. Or create another page dedicated to the Janus model and split the content. There are many different possibilities, why do you want to delete it? The content proposes valid references only, the subject is relevant, there is public attraction to this model. This is big science, and should be respected.--80.215.97.25 (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC) — 80.215.97.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep and revert per the above. The topic is notable and deserves an article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the User:Yann, a french guy, has contributed today to the french page related to Bimetric model https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le_cosmologique_bi-m%C3%A9trique with asking questions and for more references, instead of asking for deletion of the page. Why User:Yann has not do the same on english Wikipedia ? Is there a conflict of interest ? --80.215.97.25 (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert - seems a good option for this notable topic. The article has indeed changed a lot since a couple of months ago and I see the French version is currently the subject of an edit war. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notable ?. Several people are saying the topic is notable, but they aren't arguing about this opinion. Perhaps, the discussion should start there. Pldx1 (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I think the sourcing in the last decent version of the article is adequate to establish notability, and plenty of scholarly references exist. XOR'easter (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, there are plenty of primary sources, i.e. article written by people trying to invent yet another magic formula to save the phaenomena. But the question is to find secondary and reliable sources that would evaluate all these formulas. A proof of Kepler/Newton formulas was the prevision of Uranus. A proof of the atomic model was the discovery of Helium in the sun, before having it at our fingertip on Earth. A proof of the group machinery was the prevision of the Omega particle. And so on. But seeing the state of the wp:article, it seems that we have a lack of reliable evaluations of what is proposed. Pldx1 (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pldx1, you are confusing reporting published facts into WP (what is the goal) and only reporting the scientific proof into WP (what you mean). Should I remind you fringe theories can be described on WP? --2A04:CEC0:100C:F090:2165:8398:D861:423D (talk) 09:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

facts ? Pldx1 (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facts. Published scientific papers in a peer-reviewed journal. You got it? --2A04:CEC0:100C:F090:2165:8398:D861:423D (talk) 11:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peer-reviewed scientific articles that evaluate an idea proposed by someone else are secondary sources, as far as our purposes here are concerned. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no. Pldx1 doesn't mean that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:CEC0:1000:1770:FD1E:B823:F225:887F (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could agree to keep it, but not in this state. All the promotion and unsource stuff needs to be removed. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2019 (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.