Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proper Interval Locality

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, as the article violates the policy against the publication of original research.--Kubigula (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Interval Locality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Entirely unreferenced OR apparently by the author of a website of the same name, so the article may also be falling foul of WP:COI SpinningSpark 13:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, provisionally. A quite long, unreferenced article claiming to have solved some of the basic problems of physics. I cheerfully admit that I lack the qualifications to address the merits of the hypothesis, but it certainly seems like original research, and if this hypothesis has any degree of currency, sources should be added fairly easily also. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, this is a duplicate of another website placed there by its author. The article has no references and no notability. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails basic notability guidelines. Scientific hypotheses should be peer-reviewed or have significant media exposure to be considered notable. I see no evidence of either. As it stands now, this is pure original research. Nufy8 (talk) 16:48, 4 June 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.