Response Pardon me but I just noticed your message  Byrgenwulf has been making unsupported unverifiable attacks on the topic of this article Indeed in clear violation of Wikipedia policy regarding neutrality and verifiability both of you have been attacking the content or topic of the article rather than the article itself All that the article has to do is faithfully report what appeared in the press and was written by Langan given the clear notability of the content you have no right whatsoever to carp and complain about it at least in the capacity of Wikipedia editors acting in good faith All you can do is report what other sufficiently notable people have said about the theory in sufficiently reputable and verifiable sources If you choose to carp and complain anyway particularly in a way that influences how the article is edited  after all voting for deletion amounts to attempting to edit the article right out of existence in fact and likewise for encouraging others to vote as you do  then you are yourself in contempt of Wikipedia policy and it is hypocritical of you to complain when you get the worst of it  Instead of supporting his and your claims as is your editorial responsibility Byrgenwulf ignored his responsibility and attempted to infuse his attacks with authority by claiming to be a professional philosopher of physics He did this both voluntarily and dishonestly and that is now a proven fact Once you have been shown to be something thats it  anybody can point it out as many times as he or she likes If Byrgenwulf has been shown to be dishonest or not an expert as he claims to be anyone is free to state as much whenever convenient Wikipedia policy is not just something that people like Byrgenwulf and you and jeffire can point to when you dont like the way things are going for you but then ignore whenever you can get away with it It is something that applies to you as well   Incidentally although you may think that I find your supercilious comments about philosophy impressive this is anything but the case Quite the opposite in fact I am quite certain on the basis of your snide and shallow comments that your level of philosophical understanding is nothing to respect In fact it may even be as deficient as Byrgenwulfs own Please bear this in mind as you attempt to do the Wikipedia community and the world at large a monumental disservice by attacking a valuable informative and wellreferenced article on a notable topic just to strike a blow for your own inability to comprehend it while meanwhile advancing your own opinions Truly this is a black mark on your record