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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 05:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laws of compression

[edit]

Walled garden of articles by a new editor about a Swedish "hobby-astronomer" and his fringe theories. Only source quoted is a paper which was presented but not accepted at a conference last year. Searches in Google Scholar and Google find nothing. Various speedies and PRODs have been applied, but it seems sensible to bring them all together here. Possible hoax, certainly not notable. Delete all. JohnCD (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - as notability is not indicated. Even having this discussion is rewarding bad behavior on the part of the editor who created these. --Boston (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was irritated by the protocol-violating deletion, and spoke in haste. Has now addressed your concern. --Meatballs and pancakes (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The astronomer could be speedied, but not his theories; they may as well all go together. JohnCD (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fringe nonsense. Salih (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a student of Astronomy in Stockholm, and I became interested in this fringe theory of compression. I wrote the article for Wikipedia, which you kindly noted was fringe nonsense. I agree it is fringe, but why is it nonsense? If I use my calculator, and plot in the values for say the Sun and Venus, it all comes out right. And if it is right, from a mathematical point of view, how could it be nonsense? I agree fringe, but not nonsense. --Meatballs and pancakes (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cites no reliable sources, I can't find anything on Google or Google Scholar even mentioning this theory or its creator outside of Wikipedia. Clearly not notable. Hut 8.5 19:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and transwiki to the astronomy Wikia. Ottre 22:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete all. Fringe nonsense. Absolutely doesn't belong anywhere near Wikipedia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Unsourced and unsourceable - I couldn't find "A rougher pebble" anywhere, nor any information on the author of this theory. I'm forced to conclude that the only adherent of this theory is its author. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And me. And some of my friends at the uni. :) My humble suggestion is that you use the scientific method on this theory, instead of insulting the author. He is probably a nobody, but his mathematical formulae do work. That is why we used it in my class. --Meatballs and pancakes (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete Dear people, I am the guilty person publishing his theory, and I thought it was relevant, since we have discussed this theory at my university, and I was one of those who liked it and thought it was a possible explanation of the P-11 anomaly. (Apparently a large part of the anomaly is mundane, according to this theory, but the last part has a twist to it.) Apparently the author is a completely unknown person, and I haven´t found anything on the Internet, or in the libraries, so first I thought it was a hoax, but I can´t give up just now. I will try and call the author and ask him on Monday, and ask him what he means by his theory. Let us just remember two things; we are discussing two issues, science and encyclopaedia. Even a mad theory, such as "lamarckism", does fit in an encyclopaedia. Personally, I think that Mordehai Milgroms MOND-theory is sheer and utter nonsense - from a physical point of view - but it is still worthy of an article. ANYONE with elementary physical education will se the importance of the formulae in the article "Theory of Compression". So please don´t take me for a fanatic, I am still on the sceptical side, but I think that this theory has some merit, more than that of a hoax. --Meatballs and pancakes (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lamarckism was an incorrect but widely disseminated theory. This theory is not popular - it's not even published. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Meatballs, the point is that Wikipedia is not a place for first publication of anything - see No Original Research and Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. We don't decide whether a new theory is true or even interesting: we leave that task to others, such as the editors of peer-reviewed journals. The question here is, have Van den Swaerdenheem and his theories become notable enough for Wikipedia, and the test is, are there independent reliable secondary sources that discuss them? JohnCD (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm concentrating on the Van den Swaerdenheem article, rather than the other two. The name "Carl van den Swaerdenheem" give exactly only one Google hit - this article - and "van den Swaerdenheem" yields zero hits in the phone directory search for all public Swedish numbers (Eniro). The name is either seriously misspelled, or he's called something completely different, or he's a hoax. No reliable sources, not verifiable, delete! Tomas e (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As much as it pains me to argue to delete an article templated for rescue, I have to say so per WP:V as I too was unable to find any sources on the man in question and I tried a differnet spelling and still had no success on Google News and Google Books. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per other Editors research and AGF...--Buster7 (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2009 (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.

End of story Ok, I finally got hold of the man. It took some time, though, for I couldn´t find him in the telephone directory over here in Sweden. Apparently he lives in Finland and has spelled his name differently prior to the present spelling. He was not very happy about my publication, since he thought it was a lot of work that had to be done around his theories. He said that the theory was not really ready for any publication what so ever. He said he would probably think about it for "a year or maybe 20". But he said that I could put up a webpage and publish his laws and formulae, since he said that they were "obviously accurate". So I got permisson to do that. I was a little disturbed by the discussion, since he did not seem to take any care what so ever about making his theory known, and I thought that he had a duty to do so, but he said that it was "just a hobby" to him, and that he didn´t care much about it. So, to sum it up, I agree with the deletion, but will go ahead with a webpage. Thank you for the discussion. --Meatballs and pancakes (talk) 06:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]