Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Franklin Mayer


 * 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 of the debate was speedy deleted as WP:CSD A7. W.marsh 17:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Franklin Mayer
An astrophysicist who on December 27, 2005 ... released a complete model of the physics of the universe in which we live. Assuming that the author David Ashley is not a sock puppet, this is not vanity. But the only link is to AFM's own article and it is probably too soon for it to have received peer review. So I propose that the model of the universe discussed can be dismissed as original research and that until the research is accepted by the scientific community, the named subject of this article is non-notable. I await comments with interest. -- RHaworth 13:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wow, he would be very notable indeed if his model were accepted. But that appears to not have happened yet, per only 7 google hits. --Fuhghettaboutit 13:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable bio. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 15:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Alexander is listed as an academic visitor at Stanford yet has no papers at arXiv. This is – strange. Pilatus 15:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

David Ashley 16:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC) here. I'm a different guy, not a sock puppet. www.xdr.com/dash and you can see my own separate page. I never heard of AFM until I saw the slashdot article. I spent the time and read through the lectures. This is informed-layman level stuff. I'm still reeling with the implications. However I modified the page to tone down the claims, using words like "purported," and "If this theory is correct". My main reason for adding the page is because it didn't exist. I think there needs to be one. My opinion is there is a good chance the theory is going to prove out. Wikipedia can be an early source for information about this fellow. And if the article here is deleted, I think someone else will come right along and recreate it. At least let my effort be a jumping off point. Modify the article, don't wipe it out of existence.
 * But that's crystalballism--if you feel strongly, go to article--->edit, copy text, and save it in your computer in word/notepad etc. When he is properly notable per WP:BIO, repost the article with appropriate changes. --Fuhghettaboutit


 * Delete Non-notable until theory proven. Otherwise every physicist with an idea would flood wikipedia. Avi 17:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for now as crystalballism. I knew it sounded familiar when I saw the name. Slashdot linked this a few days ago. Apparently the lectures/papers have just been submitted for peer review, so I think it is a bit premature to assert notability at this time.  If his theories bear out and are widely accepted it would be wholly appropriate to add an article for Mayer, and indeed an expanded one at that. But for now, this fails WP:BIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isotope23 (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for adding my sig Pilatus.--Isotope23 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

David Ashley 19:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Fine then, there seems to be a standard policy at work here. Let it be deleted.
 * In that case, I would suggest you copy this information to User:David Ashley/Alexander Franklin Mayer and then as the author of the article, you may use to have the delete speedied. Should Dr. Mayer's theories be proven and have significant impact on the field, you will have all the data on your local user page to repost the article -- Avi 21:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.