Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New ideas in quantum physics

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. Courcelles 10:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New ideas in quantum physics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

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

Original research. Anna Lincoln 11:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete To call it original "research" is to be very polite. It is unclearly written and almost impossible to follow, but appears to arbitrarily throw together various scientific ideas in an incoherent jumble that does not add up to anything meaningful. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The editor already appears to have a blog, referenced in the article, which seems like the best place to post this kind of OR. Acroterion _(talk) 12:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does anyone know if this is speedyable under G4 (WP:Articles_for_deletion/New_ideas_in_physics). Rnb (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not exactly the same content, but it is, once again Kaliamboslef (talk · contribs) submitting the original research by one Lefteris A. Kaliambos. It even covers much the same ground, although not in exactly the same way. My opinion from that discussion covers this content, too. Uncle G (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the article is sufficiently similar to just about qualify for speedy deletion as a repost. In any case I think pretty well all of the arguments given in that AfD apply here too (it was unanimously "delete"). I will not speedily delete it myself, having already posted here, but I would have no quarrel at all with any admin who did so. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy delete and protect for article creation. Nergaal (talk) 18:22, 8 November 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.