Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heim theory (4th nomination)
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
— User:Steve, 17:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:FRINGE (Wikipedia:Fringe theories)