Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creative cosmology

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creative cosmology

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this concept meets the notability guidelines for inclusion. The original version of the article explicitly claimed that the concept was made up on the day this article was created. I'm fairly certain that the article creator is the person who came up with this theory. Prod was removed by the article creator with a "reference to blog" added. I'm on the fence as to whether this falls under G11. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability criteria. Grillo7 (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Utter nonsense. "Original Research" (but, no originality and certainly not research). No sources of any kind other than a mention of a blog by "Edge", presumably the same person as the author "Edgemeister". No hint of notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, OR and verging on the utter bollocks. ukexpat (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As said before, fails WP:OR, WP:GNG, and it feels like a WP:G11 (Specially near the end there with a blurb about the blog.) -Fumitol|talk|cont 17:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not even wrong. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
SNOW delete, invented nonsense, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gibberish. Puzl bustr (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. --Lambiam 22:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete this rubbish already. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 09:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete. Someone get rid of this messy article already! --Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.