Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scalar field theory (pseudoscience)

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scalar field theory (pseudoscience) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Parochial theory advocated by one famous perpetual motion enthusiast: Thomas E. Bearden. Recognition of this idea independent of Mr. Bearden has not been forthcoming. The article itself is essentially a soapbox for these ideas. Additionally, every verifiable point about this idea is already included in his biographical article. Since there is no useful text that needs to be merged, I submit that deleting this article is all that is needed. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Most of this is already in blacklight power or his article,. Not to mention its poorly sourced and not notable to boot.

• Comment "Most of this is already in blacklight power or his article." This is false. But ScienceApologist's assessment of Mr. Bearden with respect to "his" theory is correct.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 13:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Point taken, I guess I was thinking of hydrinos. No vote from you?

• Oh yes, please delete, there doesn't exist any one coherent scalar field theory, it is quackery which is quite different between the different proponents. Should be covered in the articles about the proponents. --Pjacobi (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as POV fork. Pcap ping 12:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into appropriate articles. Saved it so this can be done. J. D. Redding 15:03, 22 February 2010 (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.