Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical quality

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. — TKD::Talk 02:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physical quality

Probable neologism. Only reference for this term is a book by the creator of the article, so probable failure of WP:OR. Oli Filth 13:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Obvious ad for a book. Although he is a professor of physics rather than the usual OR crackpot, we should only have an article on it if this theory has had some impact. Google Scholar does not find much on it. Leibniz 19:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also this related AfD for the book's author. —David Eppstein 02:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to explain or establish concept, reads like WP:OR, except that it doesn't really make sense. It's more confused and baffle-gab laden than the typical OR piece, only wikilinks in body are back to the article itself. Pete.Hurd 18:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research. The author seems to be an established scientist and I think it is an interesting idea to generalize/reformulate physical equations, but this is not (yet) notable. From the author's website: I am attempting to reformulate physics using the notion of measurable physical quality instead of the common notion of physical quantity. [1]. When other physicists start using his approach in publications, this article could be reconsidered. Han-Kwang (t) 20:23, 28 August 2007 (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.