Deletion of Heim theory

Comment: This theory is very old and the reference in New Scientist proves that is not a |OR. The article can be rewritten but it is valid IMHO.  ---{{user|AlexBrainer}} 13:41, 27 September 2006
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: it hasn't been peer reviewed, but the first I heard of this theory was in New Scientist, and they weren't just crapping on it.  This isn't the author using WP to publish |OR, it's the presentation of a theory which is generating discussion in the scientific world, and deserves an article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: The theory is, indeed, old (so what?), and yes, it has appeared in New Scientist,  alongside Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EmDrive|perpetual motion machines, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Menkin|tinfoil hat manufacturers, and other |bollocks.  But it isn't peer-reviewed (being paranoid isn't an excuse), and it is grossly irresponsible for an encyclopaedia to in any way endorse this nonsense by including it.  It definitely fails |the policy on reliable sources, if nothing else, because most information on the theory comes from untrustworthy primary sources, and New Scientist has proven itself to be thoroughly unreliable as far as its quality standards are concerned.  But ultimately, it should be deleted because it is thoroughly discredited pseudoscientific twaddle
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Complete bollocks (WP:BOLLOCKS||WP:RS)

Comment: Many crackpot theories get some coverage and this one seems to have had a marginal amount. If it is kept, the crackpotty nature of it needs to get more coverage in the article per 's undue weight and pseudoscience sections and the OR needs to be removed. I hope that the people above saying "keep" are willing to put the time and effort in to do this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)