Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Special Theory of Ether

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. While there is apparently room for disagreement that WP:NOR is violated, the concerns about this violating WP:FRINGE have not been addressed and while there is no particularly compelling reason AGAINST waiting (as stated by Serial Number 54129 and MJL), there is also no particular reason FOR waiting that has been stated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Special Theory of Ether[edit]

Publication of original research. The article is based solely on contributions of a single collective author. WP:COI highly likely. Google search shows no peer discussion wtatsoever. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Doesn't need deleting yet, because drafts containing original research can be declined and rejected. However, I think that I have seen drafts about theories about aether at AFC in the past. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't be surprising; "proving Einstein wrong" one way or another is a fairly popular notion in fringe circles. One tell that applies here is the obsession with experiments from long ago — the 1930s or 1880s — while neglecting the history of physics since then. XOR'easter (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason to rush deletion on this exact article in draftspace. Let this go through the natural life cycles for drafts. Also, there is no evidence for WP:COI being at play here AFAIK, so I don't see why it has been mentioned. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty confident (as the AFC reviewer) that all the content is sourced, so WP:FRINGE can apply, but certainly not WP:OR/. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is obviously the author of the sources cited (or someone close) tries to publish their own research. Google search shows NOT A SINGLE independent publication. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Exactly the sort of page for which the policy WP:NOR was written. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NODEADLINE. ——SerialNumber54129 08:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- YESDEADLINE for fringe theories. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm afraid WP:YESDEADLINE does not say what you thought it did :D :p ——SerialNumber54129 16:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry. Still, there is no reason to Wikipedia to be a scratchpad for fringe theories. WP:DRAFT says if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace. So, do you have any evidence this has a chance to become acceptable? How long, do you think, it can sit here? NODEADLINE says We can afford to take our time to improve articles, to wait before deleting a new article unless its potential significance cannot be established. Hoiw are we going to establish "potential significance"? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:FRINGE, will always fail WP:FRINGE. Giving it more time will not help it pass WP:FRINGE. The page creator is entirely uninterested in writing a page that is compliant with Wikipedia policies, and we are not a web host for ideas that have attracted no interest from anyone but the inventors themselves. It basically is Original Research, morally speaking, because there is a vacuum of secondary sources. XOR'easter (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:FRINGE. The authors seem to reinvent Lorentz ether theory which got some attention in the past, but "Special Theory of Ether" didn't get that attention. --mfb (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not fringe stuff; this is just incorrect science published by two Polish academics in places like Journal of Modern Physics, one of Scientific Research Publishing's predatory open-access journals. The only references about the topic are the primary sources by the originators of the theory. There is no secondary coverage, nor is there likely to be. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:56, 21 July 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.