- 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 Consensus to delete. 1 != 2 20:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This represents the ideas of one un-notable person "John C. Fisher" that has not received any notice outside the fringe community he promotes his ideas in. Subject to the rules of fringe theory inclusion and undue weight as well as representing original resesarch, this article about a pseudoscientific concept does not belong in our encyclopedia because it is not notable enough to have received any mention in mainstream scientific journals, the popular press, or even skeptical debunking. It is the opinion of the nominator that the article exists solely to inappropriately promote the idea and use Wikipedia as a platform to advertise for Fisher's fringe theory. ScienceApologist 20:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete published but fringe and apparently not widely noted. Lies somewhere on the border of meeting WP:RS but conflicting with WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT per nom. JJL 20:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I see no evidence Fisher promoted his own ideas on wikipedia. I do not think ScienceApologist is qualified make qualifications such as un-notable or fringe theory. The topic is referenced, nothing wrong there. I see no qualitative difference between the polyneutrons (weird?) or the tetraneutrons (valid research?), all looks equally weird to me. V8rik (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- not sure - the idea is not mainstream physics, but Fisher (and helpers) appears to be honestly working towards a real theory. neutrons have mass, and so they are measureable....that these poly neutrons don't seem to be observed through normal methods is troubling towards the pseudo-ness of the work. There are some sources, and some quasi-reliable review, but no straight up mainstream reivew/discussion of the work. Rather than fringe and undo weight arguements, the status of the article should be more on straight up notability and reliable sources evaluations, and I'm not sold on deletion or inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksanddirt (talk • contribs) 21:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per SA. This articles gives no indication of attention from either the mainstream physics community or the press/public. The sources are all primary, and thus there is no evidence of notability. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Fisher simply has not got measurable replies from the scientific community. Even criticism would imply some relevance, but there is only silence. --Pjacobi (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - without prejudice for recreation if sources other than Fisher can be found indicating that the idea has become notablie in the scientific community. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge a summary into neutronium 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The first part of the article seems... "off" from a scientific standpoint. The history section just looks like an excuse to throw in some cold fusion theories, I don't see the connection at all. Failing that, we apparently already have an article on neutronium, and I see no real difference between the two. sh¤y 23:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Well, the difference would be that neutronium is actually accepted by the scientific community ;-) Someguy1221 (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and/or merge - I suppose some of this might be worthy of a footnote at Tetraneutron or Neutronium. I don't want to say it's a POV-fork - that rather presumes bad faith. However, if there's any information from this article that appears in high-quality sources, it would be better mentioned in one of those articles, and if there isn't, it shouldn't be presented as an established theory. Adam Cuerden talk 01:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable sources to show notability. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's no serious scientific or even popular discussion of this theory. It's a theoretical particle invented to explain a phenomenon, cold fusion, which doesn't exist either. The reason there's no proper peer reviewed articles on this topic is because it isn't science. Polyneutons would be big enough to detect so why aren't they detected? We can detect neutrinos and they have no charge, almost no mass, and pass through matter at nearly the speed of light as if it wasn't there. Gravitons are a bit more elusive I'll admit but at least there's a decent theory to say they should be there. Polyneutons, on the other hand, are not detected because they don't exist. Nick mallory (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete seems like classic fringe science, non-notable. Physchim62 (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep after tear-down and rebuild. The term polyneutron is a legitimate concept that goes back to Maria Goeppert-Mayer and Edward Teller in 1949 (see Phys. Rev. 76, 1226 - 1231 (1949)). The Mayer-Teller polyneutron model assumes that “an assembly of neutrons forms a nuclear fluid which will not spontaneously disintegrate into neutrons.” They use the model to explain the formation of the heavy elements. The problem with the polyneutron article is that it focuses on their use to explain cold fusion, not with the concept itself. This article can be saved, but it needs a brain transplant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkmurray (talk • contribs) 15:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but we better can have a completely new article after deletion. Searching for references I've also seen that the term "polyneutron" was used in theories of nucleosynthesis in the 40s and 50s. Obsolete theory but maybe of historical interest. --Pjacobi (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete In the absence of any evidence that the topic is discussed within the scientific community, even in the context of debunking it, it seems clear that Polyneutron is not suitably notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Following deletion, a separate article can be created for the older concept with the same name (mentioned above by Kkmurray), if it is notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: People keep insisting the article is about fringe science (unlike tetraneutron or neutronium but why?). Fisher published in the journal Fusion Technol, does not exist anymore, but I have no indications it is a irregular journal. V8rik (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Unlike the article under discussion, tetraneutron is about a case where the experimental result: "we looked, but didn't find them" was entirely consistent with the mainstream theoretical prediction: "they're not quite bound". JohnAspinall (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Skimming citations to Fusion Technol, it seems to have been used to publish cold fusion theories, which have been well outside mainstream physics since soon after it first appeared. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's "fringe de la fringe". As the edit history and talk page will show, I have been attempting to inject mainstream physics in the article for balance, but I do not believe the topic really deserves that level of attention. I am sympathetic to Kkmurray's urge to provide a brain transplant, but urge facial reconstruction too, i.e. the primary title should not be Polyneutron, but something like "Mayer-Teller Polyneutron Theory" with only a redirect from the current article's title. JohnAspinall (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of notability, as a fringe theory or otherwise.DGG (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2007 (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.