Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic Vortex Theory

(William M. Connolley 13:04, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)) Just looks like somesones pet wacky theory.


 * Quote: Atomic Vortex Theory has received very little critical attention or reviews. When pursued upon the world wide web it is apparent that the theory has been mostly latched onto by various “fringe” groups (I.e. free energy, vortex sites) which has likely tended to dissuade critical evaluation. Let the scientific community get on with their job of doing the science, let us get on with the job of documenting the paradigms. Let's not let the nutters write NPOV articles on silly pet theories. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 14:54, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * delete -- Jmabel 15:47, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable Timecubery. &#8212;No-One Jones 15:51, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: 2nd hand research. It's interesting that it attempts to separate itself from quack users, and yet it offers no scientific peer review or use.  Geogre 17:23, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Doesn't belong on Wikipedia. See No original research. --Slowking Man 22:05, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I did a search of a comprehensive journal database and was not able to find anything relating to this. Without published findings, I would have to call this original research is violation of No original research policy. If it becomes published, it can be put up for review again by the original author. Skyler 14:39, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)