Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fundamental model

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) 01:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental model

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

Non-notable fringe science. No independent sources, seems to be part of an effort to promote the creator's book. Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable and mathematically incoherent original research, fails WP:FRINGE. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Echoing David Eppstein in his entirety. Nothing in third-party sources whatsoever either. Theory of thought and MultiSpace should probably go when this one does (the former is currently PRODded, the latter had some problems with its PROD/PROD2 and eventually had that template removed by the article's creator). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research and fringe theory, as above comments have said. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as gobbledegook. It doesn't even reach the level of not even wrong. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete echoing above users, fringe and non-notable.AerobicFox (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Associated images should also be deleted from Commons. —Ruud 22:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability from independent sources, and extremely little chance that any will be found. Agree that the article is self-promotional in nature. Of zero encyclopedic value. Agree that associated images also be deleted. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficiently detailed coverage in independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2011 (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.