Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fundamental equation of unified field 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental equation of unified field theory

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

This refers to equation (6) in [1]. While the equation is interesting, is certainly isn't notable in the WikipediaN sense, and certainly isn't a fundamental equation of UFT (or of anything for what matters). Also, the author of the paper created this page, so there's some COI here as well. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete for sure. I have a hard time not laughing at this as an article. Seems like a publicity stunt if anything. History2007 (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep It's by Rainer_W._Kühne. Rather curious exercise in numerology. --Dc987 (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Numerology and OR. Not established in the mainstream at all. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Well, strictly speaking WP::OR is not an issue here. The article seems to be properly sourced. Numerology also is not exactly banished from Wikipedia. Notability can be an issue, but again the author seems to be notable enough. So I'd prefer to sit on the fence and wait for more precise data from WMAP and Chandra. And vanquish the article properly when the predicted (by Kühne in 1999) value of the Hubble constant disagrees with the observation. Meanwhile we can give an article more proper name, like "Exercises in numerology by Rainer W. Kühne". --Dc987 (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2010 (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.