Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification of gravitational force and strong force

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. OR Courcelles 23:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unification of gravitational force and strong force

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

No evidence that this is anything other than an idea dreamt up by the author of the article. The author actually said on the talk page "i am trying to give a new way of thinking about the gravitational force and strong force before the scientific community as well as the general public". No source anywhere supports this. There is an attempt to make it look like an argued-out theory, but in fact it is nothing of the sort, as it simply uses vague wording that does not in any way explain the completely ad hoc summoning up of formulas from nowhere. (For example, "For general consideration we need to do necessary adjustments to equation (2) and so we can re-write the equation as..." with no explanation what the "general consideration" is, nor how or why that "consideration" leads to the equation that follows.) The author of the article says "If we treat other fundamental forces in the same way, grand unification will be very easy". I wonder why so many thousands of physicists have struggled for decades, trying to find a solution to this problem, when achieving one would have been "very easy" had they followed this line. What a pity that the author of this aricle has not given a clear enough account that we can actually tell what this new approach is, what it means, or how it can be applied. What a pity that no sources anywhere that I can find support these vague and inexplicit claims. To say that this article should be deleted because it is original research would be to stretch the meaning of "research" almost to breaking point. (Note: I declined a speedy deletion. The article is utterly useless, and deserves to be speedily deleted, but unfortunately it doesn't satisfy any of the speedy deletion criteria, though it comes close to {{db-hoax}}.) JamesBWatson (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is original research, and violates WP:NOR. The author should publish his incredible and fantastic (using the words in a very literal way) discovery in refereed scientific journals, not in Wikipedia. Besides that, it fails verifiability and notability. It cites three Wikipedia articles as references, which is not permitted since said articles are not reliable sources, by definition. Edison (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, none of those Wikipedia articles actually supports any of the claims made in the article, so they would be useless as references anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (without merge) to Unified field theory#Current status. --Lambiam 18:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as Lambiam suggests. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request At least I will get seven days to present these ideas to the general public. I hope that some people will understand the idea and they will work with these issues and they will find a solution soon. I have a request to the people who read this, please contribute to this article in a scientific way as well as in grammatical way, as I am not a native English speaker.It is very pity that all the criticism made about my paper so far only consider the way it written, but they are not explaining about the idea and equations. And most of them are not from the Physics community. jinesh.bond —Preceding undated comment added 09:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
It seems well written, however please consult what Wikipedia is not as well No original research. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOT as well WP:NOR. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's "not even wrong." Bearian (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-confessed WP:OR, as well as WP:BOLLOCKS. -- 202.124.75.178 (talk) 07:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like it should have been speedily deleted since it's pure promotion of an WP:OR idea. That is: G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion.. "Promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organisation, a point of view, etc." His text isn't even logically coherent. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2011 (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.