Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creative Physics


 * 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 Speedy delete. Clear case of original research (see WP:OR). Angelo 23:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Creative Physics

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is unfocussed and seems unencyclopedic to me and is probably original research. Grahamec 02:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, fails WP:OR, WP:BIO, and others. This is a net.crank's biography/ad for his own crankiness. Alba 04:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This page has been userfied by its own author, User:Science-art. I am therefore marking the mainspace page as speedy A5. Alba 21:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article makes very little sense, and nothing I've seen in a trawl through physics journals and Google suggests that it would be possible to rescue it. One unrelated hit on a physics journal, and 19 GScholar hits whose value I can't determine because I have no idea whether they're related to the article's subject matter. Seriously, what is it even about? The run-on sentences full of names and titles don't help readability either. Unverifiable as it stands, as nom points out WP:OR is likely. Notable - who knows? -- Kateshort forbob  11:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources and nonsensical ff m  13:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:OR and WP:N. Tbo 157   (talk)    (review)  16:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Speedy delete. This is original research, and about as blatant as can be.  Bur nt sau ce  17:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Pure WP:OR. Time to break out the WP:SNOW shovel.   B figura  (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete I think I know less about "creative physics" after reading this article than before, when I had never heard of it. Now that's a bit at cross-purpose with the goal of an encyclopedia, isn't it?--Victor falk 22:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Since it has a name at the bottom, looks more like an essay.--JForget 23:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions.   —Espresso Addict 02:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nonsense. • Lawrence Cohen  22:37, 20 September 2007 (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.