Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principia Proportionality

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. –MuZemike 01:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Principia Proportionality

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

Non-notable pseudo-physics. Very few ghits, non of which are reliable in any way. (Earlier {{prod}} removed by User:67.33.162.175.) Wasell^(T) 05:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Such material is open to challenge and so reliable sources are essential. An earlier version of the article had a link to a YouTube presentation (rightly removed) but this also gave no clues as to sources. Thincat (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the article's sole author, and that of the YouTube presentation to which it's linked. Neither violate Wikipedia Policy. The article is open to challenge and discussion. I welcome it. I have hyperlinked much of the article's terminology to other sources within Wikipedia to better illustrate my simple, straight-forward proposal. I cannot source current dogma which believes in 'messenger particles', 'multiple-dimensions', 'parallel universes', 'strings', or 'branes'. Nor will I wallpaper the article with senseless equations, filled with mathematical emoticons, to dazzle, confound, and intimidate people into believing 2+2 might = 5. It doesn't, regardless of the amount of 'documentation', interest, or mutual-admiration it garners. Careers have been made, institutions built, and billions spent in endeavors which history will judge unkindly. I believe it is the highest aspiration of Wikipedia to chronicle the evolution of human thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenlenane (talk • contribs) 20:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced OR and shameless self-promotion. Owen× ☎ 01:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR, not notable. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The 'article's sole author' seems to have been pushing this apparent pseudoscience since 1997 (see here for example) and has yet to excite any interest, even on Usenet. –Syncategoremata (talk) 02:59, 6 July 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.