Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Null 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. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Null Physics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

• Delete Unencyclopedic. No sufficient source is given. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A whole branch of physics will need more than just a mention in a magazine. There needs to be evidence that this is not just a fringe theory and that the scientific community acknowledges it in some way. Otherwise there are about 45,000 other such theories we can include. Sam Barsoom 18:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FRINGE. 0=0+0+0+0 means universe is made of nothingness?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Should also read this forum discussion[1].Ghanadar galpa (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:FRINGE - neat! hehe looks like Wikipedia has a contingency for almost everything. Sam Barsoom 19:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all WP:COI and WP:OR. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:FRINGE and WP:OR. Seems to be a thinly-veiled attempt at promotion by the author of the theory and of the book which is the only source. For what it's worth, I'm a cosmologist and I'd never heard of it until now. It's certainly never been the subject of a serious peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal. Cosmo0 (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Any theory claiming to overturn current thinking on cosmology completely better have lots of squiggly math symbols to show for it! And those squiggles better be peer-reviewed in respected journals. Obvious WP:FRINGE. I'm looking forward to a snow close — TheBilly^(Talk) 20:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. As someone posted at the above link, this is an exercise in ”Remedial Crackpottery 101.” —Travis^talk 20:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unencyclopedic, article should be deleted also because of the above reasons.Ohmpandya (Talk) 20:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:OR is about the nicest thing I can say about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it said that the steady state model is a current model??!!!! The references are from 2000, but I thought it was out of the 50's... 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This theory comes from a single person, Terence Witt, who has published a book detailing his theory. According to M. Witt's 2007-11-27 press release, he is starting a job, lecturing about this book, at Florida Institute of Technology in January 2008. At the same time this article, created twice before (once a week before the press release) is re-created by Terrywitt (talk · contribs). This is plainly abuse of Wikipedia to promote a novel hypothesis. There's no evidence that this hypothesis has been fact checked, peer reviewed, acknowledged by anyone else at all, and become a part of the general corpus of human knowledge. Indeed, this book was not even run by an indepedent publisher. A press release by the company printing it proudly announces that M. Witt is self-publishing this book. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It is a tertiary source. This article is an unreviewed unacknowledged novel physics model that has zero independent sources and that is being added here by the model's inventor in contravention of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not because it is complete bollocks (i.e. not even coherent enough to qualify as a fringe theory), but because it is non-notable complete bollocks. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In addition to the above, the reference "Zero: Biography of a Dangerous Idea" supports Big Bang cosmology, not this. Eldereft (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - the author seems to be having a shot at reinventing Monadology, but it's still blatant OR. Tevildo (talk) 17:42, 12 January 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.