Keeping the speculative papers giving explanations for a fictitious phenomenon Since the team members have resigned users D H and Strebe have removed quite a large amount of very well sourced content I think that this content should be kept in the article as it clearly shows how the scientific community reacted to the experiment so i m o the content remains relevant to the article While some of these publications and now probably moot explanations might be embarrassing for some authors I don t think it is up to us to decide that I actually think that the decision to remove all this could be interpreted as a mild form of original research I propose we keep all of this in the article Any seconds