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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Mass transforming into gravity

Mass transforming into gravity (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not for original research. This "brand new physical concept" has been PRODded before, and WP:NOR explained on the author's talk page, but here it is again, with a bit of additional material. I bring it here so that any future re-postings can be speedily deleted. JohnCD ( talk) 14:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. JohnCD ( talk) 14:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete and salt. Recreated page by writer to whom it was already explained that Wikipedia is not for original research. WP:OR, promotion of a fringe theory. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This is a personal essay. The author has created a new physics theory, and he is using wikipedia to publish. The author seems to have problems understanding that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. The creator should find a website where this type of content is acceptable, and publish there. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 15:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete and salt. Nat Gertler is right, this article doesn't even have any references and a Google search only turns up mentions of this page. Hence this article's subject is unquestionably not notable. Jinkinson talk to me 16:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete as above. Not only is this WP:OR and WP:FRINGE, it is also delving into the realms of religion and belief systems. The article does not cite any reliable references to establish the notability of this subject. This is simply conjecture with no real scientific method in it, the author seems to be saying "I think this" without explaining why. It has no place on wikipedia. Martin451 16:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete essay-like speculation, neither scientific nor encyclopedic. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete and SALT - Textbook WP:OR and WP:FRINGE, article is also poorly sourced. A search for the subject here will turn up no relevant results. hmssolent\ ^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 01:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete, Salt, and Snow. All of my nope. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete Oh my god, worst crackpot OR ever. -- cyclopia ^speak! 14:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete and Salt per WP:SNOW PianoDan ( talk) 15:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete: rambling OR based on personal speculation. It's not encyclopedic. Praemonitus ( talk) 00:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete and salt. Wow, worst word salad ever. Bearian ( talk) 18:35, 17 October 2013 (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.