Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heim theory
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
— User:Byrgenwulf, 01:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:BOLLOCKS||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Complete bollocks)