Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unified Gravity Corporation

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. MBisanz ^talk 05:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unified Gravity Corporation[edit]

No in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. Coverage extends to a patent application and a related paper in a low-tier journal. Prod contested (Talk:Unified Gravity Corporation). - Eldereft (cont.) 21:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant notability guideline: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). - Eldereft (cont.) 22:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Start-up company with no evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the factoids listed on the talk page is notable. Powers ^T 22:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability has been satisfied as Wiki guidelines state as the Unified Gravity Corporation paper "Gravity Theory Based on Mass-Energy Equivalence" is published by Acta Physica Polonica B (established in 1920), which is recognized by the European Physical Society. ChildofMidnight, Powers, and Eldereft equates European with low tier so their statement show a high degree of American bias. All patent material should meet notability as it is published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). In addition if a person enters Hydrogen Lithium Fusion in a google search, Unified Gravity Corporation and their patent is the first two of 1030 entries. It is notable that this is this company is working with Hydrogen-Lithium Fusion at a NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. The statement that there is no in-depth coverage from independable sources is not true as the patents document the inventions as well as experimental proof of concepts and experimental results. In addition, the published gravity theory give an explanation as to the functioning of the inventions. Gravityforce (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patent documents are not the same as in-depth coverage from independent sources.ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tossing around unsupported accusations of nationalist bias does nothing but harm to your position. Powers ^T 02:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the United Nation's website mentions the part about them working with NASA. Can anyone submit information to them, or do they check up on it properly? How come its not mentioned on the NASA website? Anything NASA does usually has people discussing it on science sites. I Google for "Unified Gravity Corporation" and "NASA" and hardly anything comes up. I'm doubting the story now. Also, do they work with them, or is it just them down there like countless thousands of others each year, trying to show off their latest concept to ask for funding? Dream Focus (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no independent reliable sources that comment on the significance of this company. A patent filed by inventor X does not prove the notability of the invention. Otherwise we should have a Wikipedia article on everything ever patented. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a patent is not notable until there is significant discussion in other sources whether involving litigation, or exploitation. In this case it isnt even a patent, just an unexamined patent application, which is of no authority whatsoever. An individual journal paper not widely referred to is not evidence of notability either, no matter in what journal. Hydrogen-lithium fusion is very real, and worth a redirect to an appropriate article, but that does not mean this claimed invention or this company is. DGG (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The corporation satisfies notability for a corporation as it is a business. Even in the editors guidelines it states "The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." This is not the case. EdJohnston and DGG needs to know a patent is independent reliable secondary published source and the Wiki guidelines do not state otherwise. The Unified Gravity Page does not go into the patent app but rather uses it to establish the company exists and what it is trying to do. Would people please re-read the Company guidelines as I feel editors are getting off topic. From the guidelines a publication of any form (i.e. patent or academic physics journal) does establish notability a company. I thought the notability from a credible academic journal was encouraged as well. Gravityforce (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Nuclear Force Delete as Vanispamcruftisement. Lacks WP:RS, fails WP:N, WP:COI, and probably a whole bunch of others. Gforce has yet to make an edit not promoting this alternative gravity theory and now the company attempting to profit from it.Horrorshowj (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With bonus points for the name of the business: Gravity — we own it! No showing of importance at all, let alone a description of the alleged gravity technology. Besides, everybody knows that gravity is the work of invisible Smurfs. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It even sounds like a hoax. DVdm (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any article that satisfies DGG that it should be deleted has no hope :) Stifle (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please don't judge by that--there are a number of areas where i am more deletionist than the consensus--and I am as subject as anyone else to erratic misjudgments and idiocies. Rather, if my argument convinces you, then and only then, should you follow it. DGG (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2008 (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.