Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamic Resonance Theory

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Resonance Theory

This article is at best a hoax, or nonsense masquerading as science. It may be a rant from a psychotic person. In any case, the references relied on do not support the text, and I cannot verify this theory any other way. Richard Cavell (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing more than pseudoscience. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and fails WP:NOTE. Perhaps it could be moved to the user's space instead, and they can work on it there to address these problems. It is currently a single edit. Verbal chat 12:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is unapologetically original research. The last paragraph says it all:

The basic experiments of this Theory has already been duplicated successfully in the Energetic Forum and are currently undergoing more intensive research. The effect of such open circuit has already been proved in the forum, further experiments are being done and results will be posted here.

--siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research pseudoscience that tries to usurp a string of words that occasionally turns up in science. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pseudoscience by non-expert. A non-notable theory apparently made up by an aficionado to explain to explain how his perpetual motion / free energy machine works. (if it was actually notable by WP:N standards then it would merit inclusion somewhere) --Enric Naval (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. No scientific basis to support the theory. Salih (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are a lot of words there, and unreliable sources, and never the understanding shall be reached. Shot info (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (NOT Delete),

My appologies: I did not realize Wikipedia is only meant for reading and writing to by 'Qualified Scientists'.

Searches all over internet fails to yield results for 'Dynamic Resonance' except for an article in relation to such phenomena in biological cells - and eventhere it is called 'crazy'. YET: all the universe consist of this vibration/resoance/occilation. Therefore the "Dynamic Resonance Theory" does NOT step on any toes and does not exist in either the exact description nor claims until this posting.

NEVER and nowhere did I call for or refer to perpetual motion machine - this is not a machine, it is a very plain electronic circuit of which I would like to post the diagram, but can not find out how to add such thing.

I have added more information and reference. Unfortunately - and probably because this is not a 'normal proven well written scientific concept' there are not many possible references I can use. The current phenomena is based on unique ability of the 2N2222 Transistor and the rest of the electronic circuit which I would like to post if someone can explain to me how to add such JPG photo.

Thus gents, should you wish to delete, it is your option - but there is a void in your information with nothing else to replace 'Dynamic Resonance Theory' Corrie Lamprecht (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the idea that a youtube video is proof of anything? #http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLmK6uBi9PA Look! I proved someone can blow fire out their ears! Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who said "Perpetual motion machine". I was referring to the fact that any circuit that can give a perpetual source of free energy can be used to power a perpetual motion machine, even if the theory itself is not about perpetual motion. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Junk. Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2008 (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.