Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bentley's Proton Electron mass equation


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was DELETE.  Rob e  rt  17:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Bentley's Proton Electron mass equation
Original research. Cnwb 06:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy as spam. If not, a delete would be just fine. I also agree that it is original research and we, as a community, are not qualified to rate on things like this. Zach (Sound Off) 06:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy as patent nonsense - the author had me on his side until he had the nerve to claim "k0=9*10^9". That made me lose all respect for the article's research. Johntex\talk 06:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is definitely not "patent nonsense" by Wikipedia's definition.  It is clearly not correct or sensible research, but that doesn't qualify it for a speedy. -- SCZenz 07:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment if it is not patent nonsense then that implies it is intelligible, so what does this line from the article mean: "Derivation will be submitted when this result is verified as consequential in the Wikipedia community."? --Johntex\talk 09:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe that sentence is supposed to mean that, if we don't delete his article, he'll tell us how he got the answer. Obviously he's confused, but in any case it's only one sentence.  Patent_nonsense requires near-complete gibberish. -- SCZenz 15:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. See also Articles for deletion/Bentleys Proton Electron mass equation below. -- SCZenz 07:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original Research. utcursch | talk 11:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete OR. the wub  "?!"  12:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not patent nonsense but obviously incorrect OR. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:05, 7 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.