Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversy on Stellar Evolution


 * 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 (WP:SNOW). -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Controversy on Stellar Evolution

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is almost pure original research. No citations of reliable sources are provided for novel theories. Moogwrench (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete with fire No "almost" about it - this is WP:OR with bells on. Yunshui (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear original research with a dash of soapbox thrown in. GILO  A&E&uArr;  08:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing but incoherent, sourceless ramblings. North8000 (talk) 10:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Incoherent, sourceless, nutty WP:OR. -- 202.124.74.97 (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete; This is what the phrase "original research" was coined for. It does not use sources (and the content isn't even remotely compatible with what reliable sources say, anyway). bobrayner (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete&mdash;A rambling, unclear, personal essay. RJH (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Snowball delete. I am sad that there isn't a speedy deletion criterion for this sort of garbage but maybe we can just close early. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2011 (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.