Talk:Antony Garrett Lisi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Explanation of theory

I would love to see a explanation of his work.

Abstract: All fields of the standard model and gravity are unified as an E8 principal bundle connection. A non-compact real form of the E8 Lie algebra has G2 and F4 subalgebras which break down to strong su(3), electroweak su(2) x u(1), gravitational so(3,1), the frame-Higgs, and three generations of fermions related by triality. The interactions and dynamics of these 1-form and Grassmann valued parts of an E8 superconnection are described by the curvature and action over a four dimensional base manifold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.22.97.219 (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a wiki about Antony Garrett Lisi, not his theory. The big bold criticism of his theory does not belong here.

URL duplication

There are two articles with identical titles but different URLs.

Note the full URLs. This article (URL http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Garrett_Lisi) has the same title, and similar content as the main article (URL http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Antony_Garrett_Lisi).

You get to the false page by searching on "garrett lisi".

I recommend deleting http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Garrett_Lisi

Navy.enthusiast (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to delete Garrett Lisi, it already re-directs to Antony Garrett Lisi. As his name has been given both ways in news and scholarly sources, having both articles (with the short name re-directing to his real name) makes a whole lot of sense. --健次(derumi)^talk 20:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The two pages are not truly identical. It would be smarter to delete the false page and/or make it a redirect page to the page where the title and URL both match correctly. 71.96.217.18 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Garrett Lisi is a redirect to Antony Garrett Lisi. It has been since the 15th. --Not big and not clever (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Separating person from model

Reading over the article, and the recent dispute here, whether an inconsistency was "demonstrated" or "claimed", I wonder whether it's a good idea to go into any detail of the physics model on a personal page. I suggest to remove all detail from the model from this page, and merge content into the page of the model itself (if that's even needed, on first view all the information is already duplicated there).

As for notability, I feel that if a reader is engaged in a surfing, snowboarding, or burning man community, you might find it interesting that one of his/her peers has published a physics model that suggests to unify the forces. If you're in the physics community, you might find it interesting that an independent researcher finances his works in an unusual way. Since there is independent public mention of Garrett Lisi in at least two fields of general interest, which are typically not related, I find this notable for Wikipedia.

One minor thing, I suggest to remove the category "Cosmologist" unless this can be sourced.

Here's what I would suggest, writing it in a way that could satisfy both focus groups (physicists and surfers/snowboarders):

(leave the infobox as-is)

Antony Garrett Lisi (born 1968; uses name Garrett by preference), is an independent theoretical physicist, who finances his works in part through surfing and snowboarding activities.

Born in Los Angeles, and raised in San Diego, California, Lisi graduated the Cate School (south of Santa Barbara, California) in 1986, received his B.S. with highest honors in physics and mathematics from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1991, and received a Ph.D in physics from the University of California, San Diego in 1999. While not holding a university faculty position, he is listed as a visitor at the University of Hawaii, and receives support from the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics and the Foundational Questions Institute.

On November 6, 2007 he posted a controversial paper to the popular "arXiv" scientific preprint server, proposing to answer one of the fundamental unsolved problems in physics: Connecting quantum physics and gravitation, to form a unified field theory that models all fundamental interactions that physicists have observed in nature (main article: An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything).

Featured in Surfer magazine, he has been described as a “surfer dude” who is primarily employed in activities outside of physics. The San Diego Union Tribune's sports section notes that "... Lisi has been painted by some with the stereotypical 'surfer dude' brush. Inside the scientific community, however, Lisi says he's had no such problems." He splits his time living in Maui, where he surfs and windsurfs, and Lake Tahoe, Nevada, where he practices alpine snowboarding.

According to Lisi, "Surfing acts as a great 'reset' button for whatever I'm worried about in the rest of my life. [...] If I'm struggling with a difficult physics question, focusing on approaches that aren't going anywhere, surfing allows me to get away from the problem [...]". About the initial reception of his model, he comments: "OK, the hype (and my inbox) has gotten totally out of control. This is, after all, about an untested theory that may or may not turn out to be true. But, on the other hand… it’s pretty damn amusing. Mostly, all this media attention just makes me want to go hide for fifteen minutes, and I hope to come back to see physicists pondering this E8 theory, despite the hype."

(then, remove the entire E8 / theory discussion, and leave all from the ==See also== section on down, except for Catgory:Cosmologist unless sourced)

Comments, concerns, corrections? Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do think that a brief summary here (a couple of paragraphs) describing the theory and some of its controversies, together with the link to the main article on the theory, would be the most useful way to do this. The trick will be to keep the description of the theory here relatively brief and free of disagreements. GiveItSomeThought (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the tricky part, isn't it? Most athletes probably care less about details beyond what I'm suggesting above, and physicists would want to look up the specifics of the theory anyway in the main article. I advocate against duplication, and instead concentrate on the focus groups of the article. --- Conversely, if we wouldn't have more than one focus group, then we'd indeed be facing a notability concern for Garrett Lisi as a person. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

With only one feedback item by GiveItSomeThought, let me do the first step and separate theory details from this personal page. GiveItSomeThought's comment is good, I just don't know how this could be worded well. For now I've added the word "controversial" to my initial suggestion, maybe another editor here can find a better way; though my suggestion remains to leave out details. I've checked the page again, and all that is said about Dr. Lisi's E8 model appears duplicated in the model's own page, a situation that should be avoided in general. Please excuse if I've deleted a notable reference without merging it into the other article, that was not my intent. Once we've removed the controversy from this personal page, I'd like to see whether we can reflect the academic controversy in a more neutral way on the model's own page. Constructive comments welcome. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Biographical errors

Hello - after checking the links and biographical references more deeply, I noticed several errors:

• Dr. Lisi was lecturer at University of Hawaii, not visitor;
• he was visitor at the Perimeter Institute, but did not receive financial support, to my knowledge, and
• he has received a two-year grant from the Fundational Questions Institute for his research (that was correct; but the link was incorrect and pointed to the Perimeter Institute).

I've fixed these errors, and also put the reference links to the correct statements. One quote of Lisi's had a hotlink (the words "pretty damn amusing" were hotlinked to a hillarious satire on uncyclopedia.org), which I restored. I've removed his religious stance from the infobox, since I could not find reference to public attention this would have received. Also, I removed the category "Cosmologist"; even though the media has eluded to this, after checking his publication list this doesn't appear to be the right scientific category, as his works don't deal with the evolution of the universe).

I hope the article is now in a state that may be more acceptable. If so, the theory page will be next for clean-up. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability (1)

He has no notability individually. This article should be turned into a redirect to the "theory". DGG (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As author of a notable theory, I think he does, indeed, have notability. In addition, his odd lifestyle as a scientist would add to that notability. --健次(derumi)^talk 15:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Odd lifestyle does not make for notability. If it did, we'd have 100 times as many articles. Whether the theory is notable beyond a single widely noticed publication is the issue. DGG (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It's somewhat borderline, but I'd say producing a credible theory of everything makes him more notable than the average professor, and hence includable under the spirit of the academic guidelines, even if one needs to stretch WP:PROF a bit to make it fit. Dragons flight (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

PS. I will say however that I think too much space is being devoted to his theory in this article, and not enough to the other aspects of the man. Dragons flight (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

How much of these other aspects can be verified by reliable secondary sources? If we replaced the discussion of his theory with a link to the article on that, we might just be left with a stub which essentially says:

"Garrett's a physicist who followed a non-traditional career path. He likes surfing. Oh, and we know where he got his degrees from. That's about it, really. All the good stuff is over at the other article."

There doesn't seem much point to that, presently. And there's no sense in having two articles to discuss the theory. --Not big and not clever (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Put that way, I would have to agree. --健次(derumi)^talk 15:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I take it we are agreed on a merge? DGG (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections. If a merge is done, care should be made so that Garrett Lisi also re-directs there. --健次(derumi)^talk 03:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think we should not hurry with an eventual merger, at least until both his and his theory's articles have stabilised somewhat; they're making quite a lot of waves (involuntary pun) on the net at the moment--victor falk (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont think the merge is a good idea. The topics are different, the theory he has proposed and the man and his life. As he has not followed a traditional path there is a bit more to say than average plus quite a few sources to back this up. --Salix alba (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe a merge is either a bad idea, or at the very least very premature. If his theory is not relatively rapidly disproved, he's clearly notable, and we'd have to recreate the article. The theory is still in the "too new to have been solidly reviewed" stage, so we don't know, but it's generating enough attention within the physics community that he's clearly notable to them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I see the deWP no longer has the article. DGG (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Placing a notability tag should generally be accompanied by a comment on the Talk page. I've removed the anonymous placement of the notability tag pending explanation and discussion here. Plainly there is substantial interest in the person behind the theory - both because of the potential scale and impact of the theory, and because of the unusual and interesting personal circumstances regarding the theorist. GiveItSomeThought (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I just double-checked, and "Garrett Lisi" has 113,000 hits in Google - well into notability range, I'd say - not to mention significant media coverage (network news and international newspapers). GiveItSomeThought (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Added a notability tag. According to the wiki guidelines, "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." It does say MAY... but in this case (as far as I know) all the media coverage in fact resulted from a single event - which was a story in the New Scientist about a particular unpublished preprint Lisi recently placed on a publically accessible web server. Some combination of circumstances resulted in a kind of perfect media storm, but all the coverage was directly tied to that single event. Given that the theory is completely wrong (and this is not a controversial statement among 99% of practicing physicists in the field), it will simply disappear without a trace. In fact this has already begun to happen - there is not a single news story on google news search mentioning Garrett Lisi in the past week, and I very much doubt there will be any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.239.242 (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the last comment is politically motivated as the commenter feels the theory is completely wrong. There is no proof of it being wrong as of yet. And there have been recent news articles on Garrett this week - so saying there have not is a flat out lie. He was featured in the San Diego Union Tribue on Monday, Dec 3rd and has been discussed in the Indian publication DNA today (Dec 5th.) The paper causing the media storm led to two outcomes. One being an interest in his life and life style, and the other being an interest in his paper. This is NO single event. The fact that news forums, websites, web traffic, and blogs have all picked up on various aspects of Lisi's life implies that there is much about Lisi that is notable. Whether the theory is right or wrong, Lisi is of interest, and his lifestyle is also at the center of a great debate on academia, publishing, and science research funding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.173.202.218 (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it was not a "flat out lie". When I posted that comment there were zero hits on google news for "Garrett Lisi" in the last week. Now there is one - the article from India you mentioned. As for proof the theory is wrong, it's all over the place. Just have a look at the "Reception" section of the wiki on the theory itself. Another of the wikipedia guidelines - the one meant to apply to academics - is that the person be more notable than the average college professor. Lisi certainly does not meet that. He has posted or published a total of 6 papers in the last 13 years, which together have a grand total of 9 citations. You can verify that here: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+A+LISI%2Ca&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=

The average college professor in Lisi's field publishes perhaps 4-5 papers a year, and would have 500-1500 citations or so by now. As an example take Justin Khoury, recently hired to an assistant prof. level position at the Perimeter institute where Lisi was visiting. In 8 years he has published 33 papers and has more than 1700 citations. Anyone hired into a faculty position in the last 5 years in this field would measure up to that, more or less. So Lisi obviously does not meet that criterion. http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+A+khoury%2C+justin&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.236.155 (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Lisi is perfectly notable. By the way, look for another burst of interest when his ideas receive formal peer review. PRRfan (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The article on "Antony Garrett Lisi" is in the San Diego Union Tribune in the sports section. So basically, you are telling me that your search for "Garrett Lisi" makes any other articles null and void that are under Antony Garrett Lisi, or other tags. And the same day that you made your claim was also the day that the Indian article came out. You should have checked before making your claim. If that isn't lying, I don't know what is. I found that article with a google search. Your complete premise is that we won't hear about him anymore, and that was wrong. And will continue to be wrong. Perhaps you should give Justin Khoury a wiki if you find him notable (if he doesn't already have one). I honestly don't know why you are so bent on tearing Garrett Lisi up. Garrett also is not your typical academic. In fact, he is not affiliated with a university. So his having even what you consider "meager" publications and citations is not enough to take notability away from him. People in academia are required to publish. Lisi is not. He is very unusual, and you haven't made a good argument against that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.173.202.218 (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"So basically, you are telling me that your search for "Garrett Lisi" makes any other articles null and void that are under Antony Garrett Lisi, or other tags." No, I actually didn't say anything of the kind. I just stated a simple fact. And I might point out that "Garrett Lisi" will find anything "Antony Garrett Lisi" finds. "And the same day that you made your claim was also the day that the Indian article came out. You should have checked before making your claim." Has i occurred to you that the article might have started appearing on google news after I did the search that day? "If that isn't lying, I don't know what is. " How about what you are saying here? "Perhaps you should give Justin Khoury a wiki if you find him notable" Did you read what I wrote? My point was that Khoury isn't particularly notable by Wiki's criterion, and yet he is far more notable than Lisi. As for why I care... this is a case where a huge amount of misinformation has been spread about this theory. Millions of people across the world read that this guy is the next Einstein, etc. etc., all because he hyped his own theory (which is close to nonsense) and took in one credulous science journalist. I'd like for wikipedia to tell the truth, not the hype. At the very least it should be pointed out that 13 years after his first paper this guy has had zero impact on physics and is regarded as a crackpot by almost the whole field. (Incidentally 13 years after his first paper Einstein had revolutionized physics and was the most famous scientist in the world.)

I think you have quite nicely shown your true colors. As for the google news search - I was saw when your edit appeared. And the news was out before it. No one is claiming that the theory is right yet. Not even Lisi. But HE is notable. And really there is no more I need to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.230.136 (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, much of the article should be merged into An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything. As for notability, a single, highly criticized, not peer-reviewed paper seems dubious, but this has generated quite a few headlines and interest. Metromoxie (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Garrett Lisi is a famous, established physicist because he has a wiki page that says so, and his wiki page says so because he has a wiki page. His theory, which doesn't predict anything, and which has no novel equations, and which was hyped to the media under the false pretense of being able to make predictions, and which is based on misconstrued and faulty math as well documented throughout the blogosphere, has been shown to be patently false in all of its claims. His theory is not a theory of everything, nor can it be tested at the LHC. The purpose of wikipedia is to present the Truth. Lisi's theory is not a true theory, nor did Lisi tell the truth about it, so in keeping with wikipedia's policy, both his non-theory, and his page, should be deleted, as other than his non-theory, Lisi has no notabili8ty. Wikipedia is not the place to create unadulturated hype and phony pretensions in the realm of physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1776historybuffer (talk • contribs) 01:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am reinstating the notability concern. Please do not remove it without justifying that here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.114.25 (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Lisi is notable. If his hypothesis turns out to be correct, which he admits is a long shot, he'll end up winning the Nobel Prize. That alone should be enough to keep his entry alive.

This argument is nonsensical. There are 10s of theoretical physics papers every day posted on the arxiv which, were they correct, would win the authors the Nobel. Yet few if any of their authors have wiki entries, nor should they. Notability concern restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.5.35.152 (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This notability editwar seems so senseless to me. Can we stop yet? The Wikipedia community ought to be glad Lisi doesn't come here and demand his bio be deleted. No sensible scientist would want a place where anonymous idiots can write crap about his or her personal life. The paper is notable for gaining international recognition, no question there, and a notable paper deserves a BRIEF professional bio about the author. Happy editing! Tom Ruen (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability (2)

Lisi is much less notable than thousands of other researchers. Just look at his publications. His only claim to fame is a brief burst of media attention, now gone. The article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.186.252.27 (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree Lisi is not notable, but perhaps this page should be merged with one on the theory (which is notable if only as an example of media frenzy and poor science journalism) rather than deleted? Opaqueice (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's not paper, so there's no reason to delete the information that has been compiled and edited. Moreover, plenty of people are interested in Lisi and his theory. If there are other researchers you feel deserve note in WP, feel free to start and add to their articles. PRRfan (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should keep the notability discussion open a bit longer, your feedback is good. Personally, the separation of Dr. Lisi's bio and his E8 model was a first step to disentangle a big, messy collection of statements here, and make it more readable. The model page is still under criticism, so any bit that's removed from the dispute helps. I ask that, even if we would reach consensus to merge Lisi's bio into the E8 model, that this not be done before the model article has been stable for a little while.

Opaqueice pointed out media frenzy and poor science journalism, and I wish to add a toxic blogging atmosphere. Added together, this gives a reason for keeping Lisi's bio separate from his model: Imagine the reaction when a follow-up work is published in - say - 6 months. You can be sure that both critics and supporters of Lisi's approach are fine tuning their responses right now, after all that mud-slinging last month. And so will be the press ... if I were a reporter at "Surfer Magazine", I would right now probably sit in my chair, laugh hard, and collect material for a hillarious satire about the "scientific community" ... And I'd like to point out the timing of Lisi's model, which is - to my knowledge - the first popularized non-String theory unification proposal since Lee Smolin's and Peter Woit's pop-culture books, both 2006, which are critical of the effort put into String theory today (this dispute is covered on the String theory article). Imagine what would happen if e.g. Jacques Distler and/or Luboš Motl come out with their own pop-culture response? You can be sure that Lisi will be "mentioned" in such works, and having a bio in Wikipedia could be helpful.

So, I opt for "keep", and revisit this decision again in - say - a year from now. But I wouldn't fight a merge, either, after a couple of weeks or so. Jens Koeplinger (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Poll on notability

I'd like to get a headcount here. At least one IP which has put the notability tag in is a TOR node and is now blocked (81.186.252.27) and is ineligible to participate.

Lisi is notable and no tag needed (add your WP account or IP address to the list below)

1. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Koeplinger (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
3. PRRfan (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
5. victor falk (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Dave Runger (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
7. I saw a nice line on WP:FRINGE - An appearance on Wikipedia should not make something more notable than it actually is. - which seems a nice place to draw the line. By that characterisation, Lisi clearly should be included. --Salix alba (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
8. GiveItSomeThought (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
9. DAGwyn (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC) We need the Lisi article to link to from Unified field theory, for example.
10. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
11. helohe (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisi's notability is in question and a tag is appropriate (add your WP account or IP address to the list below)

1. Not notable. Opaqueice (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Yevgeny Kats (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should count the comments above, at least until those people have had a chance to vote. In the not-notable camp:

1. DGG
2. Metromoxie (marginal, wanted at least partial merge)
3. 76.17.114.25
4. 213.5.35.152
5. 1776historybuffer
6. 81.186.252.27
7. Me

We'll see how this develops. 71.167.243.242 (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Note to vandal (PRRfan) - don't erase other's edits of a talk page. If you want to add something, add it.

Note to 71.167.243.242, if you insist on counting comments above, practice intellectual honesty and list the ones in the notable camp:

1. Dragons flight
2. 64.173.202.218

PRRfan (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if anonymous IP user 71.167.243.242 wants to take the headcount ad absurdum, then the headcount will have failed to provide a meaningful outcome. Using enough creativity, one can render any attempt for consensus futile. Keep cool, happens all the time. Sorry for the nastigram you've received.

User 71.137.243.242, as for the two arguments for notability I've given so far, can you please provide a comment? My arguments were: (1) Public attention received in two domains that are typically not related (physics and sports), and (2) anticipation of follow-up or derivative work within the next year, potentially controversial, that may raise interest in Garrett Lisi as a person. A comment would be much appreciated. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"Sorry for the nastigram you've received." Not sure what you're referring to, but PRRfan's deletion of my comments on this talk page is a violation of item #1 on wiki's list of guidelines for talk page editing. You are not to edit another user's content without permission, and this case (deleting my comments because they undermined his position) was particularly egregious. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments

As for your headcount comment, I have no idea what you're talking about. The idea of starting a poll from zero - as if no one had commented on notability in the last month or so - was a transparent attempt to skew the results. Lisi fanboys are much more active here than those that concluded a while back he isn't notable, and fanboys will naturally react much more quickly to such a poll.

Notability: the physics attention was a textbook case of a single brief burst of publicity. According to wiki's guidelines as I understand them, that is not sufficient for notability. If you think the sports stuff makes him notable, go ahead and make the case.

As for "anticipation" of something which "may raise interest in Garrett Lisi as a person" constituting notability; what a truly absurd argument. So we can use improbable future events as evidence for notability - I guess we'd better get to work creating wiki entries for all the quadrillions of sperm in the world, huh? The notion that any physicist is going to pay any more attention to this "theory" later than they are now is silly, and I suppose science journalists are too embarrassed by this fiasco to write about it again (although perhaps I give them too much credit).

The physics doesn't work for more reasons than I can list in brief here - it was based on several fundamental and basic misunderstandings of group theory, particle physics, and gravity, and the only reason it received any more attention than the thousands of other near-crackpot papers which appear on the arxiv every year is shoddy science journalism, a credulous public, and newspapers having cut their science reporting down to almost nothing and desperate for readership. It was DOA and will remain so, and the coverage is an embarrassment to serious physicists (and to Lisi, if you believe what he says at least - and I see no reason not to).71.167.243.242 (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think neither the theory nor the person meet the notability criteria. I support the arguments given by 71.167.243.242. Yevgeny Kats (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding notability, Lisi's story is on the cover of the January 2008 issue of a major French science magazine, Science&Vie[1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.228.89 (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, this theory does not have to be correct for the author to be notable. For example, a spectacular, provocative failure that draws a lot of media and popular attention, would lead me to agree that the author is notable; nobody is challenging the notability of Stanley Pons or Martin Fleischmann. I don't mean to suggest one way or the other that Lisi is in the same category as those two - however, the physics and science in this theory do not actually have to be correct for the author to be notable. Here, the unique combination of the scale of the theory, the intensity and magnitude of positive and negative comments within the physics community, the wide-spread media and popular attention, and the unusual personal circumstances of the author, all bring this person well within notability range. GiveItSomeThought (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree; Lisi is somebody for whom a general reader might reasonably expect to find a WP article. — DAGwyn (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisi is certainly notable, he is discusses all over the internet for the start. His biography is not trivial and notable, there is no indication that he finds the publicity to be hurtful for him Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)