Deletion of Heim theory (4th nomination)

Comment: per GNG, and make it a stub per . Thanks to Cyclopia for providing the book sources. There is nothing to indicate that this is an accepted theory in the scientific community. However, the sources show that some people are at least interpreting Heim theory with unique perspectives. Yet, in contrast, one source from Springer (by K.F. Long) appears to be a serious scientific endeavor, and on page 295 it states: "Heim theory is not studied as part of mainstream scientific research today". http://books.google.com/books?id=EAD2-GrarkEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Deep+Space+Propulsion&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zBvkUZuOF_TH4APu_4HACg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22heim%20theory%22%20physics&f=false. So, it seems the "stub" should probably be written from this perspective. Also, in the beginning of the New Scientist article, it states that the awarded paper is based on an "idea that relies on an obscure and largely unrecognized kind of physics". Additionally, the New Scientist article does not appear to state anything conclusive about the theory, and does seem to depict the theory as unproven ( http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_hyperdimensions11.htm Full text copy here || http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925391.200-testing-heims-theories.html New Scientist site - paywall
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Wikipedia is not here to decide what is right, what is crackpot, but what is , and this theory is notable, even the New Scientist comic has an article about it. Some people may , but that is not a reason for deletion. If there is another theory of the same name, then create another article for that theory, having a more notable theory is not a valid reason for deletion for the lesser one. If there are reliable sources calling it crackpot, then call it crackpot.w
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABLE||WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: with a lot of cleanup. The article needs to be almost entirely re-written in order to comply with . '''069952497a
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: WP:FRINGE is probably more helpful than  here. In particular, the nom is quite wrong when he says "Crackpot ideas don't need wiki articles." '''Notable''' ones do (although I have no opinion regarding the notability of this theory). -- Special:Contributions/202.124.88.39|202.124.88.39
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)