Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derivation of E=mc^(2n+2) from Einstein's E=mc^2


 * 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. Closed early because the result here is a foregone conclusion and the article also meets multiple speedy deletion criteria. I'll also salt the title. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Derivation of E=mc^(2n+2) from Einstein's E=mc^2

 * – ( View AfD View log )

It's a hoax. It's previously been declined repeatedly at AFC and CSDed but the creator persists in moving to mainspace directly and requesting undeletion when deleted, so I'm hoping we can get a salting of the title and stronger consensus to refer to in future if further action needs to be taken. Additionally, that it's a hoax may not be apparent to any non-science-minded editors, but see here for 's very patient explanation. — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A mistake and an ambiguity in the nomination statement have been corrected; check the page history if interested. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: the sources don't actually support the article text. While this strictly speaking doesn't impact deletion, if the article creator is reading this, I would recommend they look into dimensional analysis to see why this doesn't work. It's cavalier with whether c is representing a dimensioned quantity (as it is in $$E=mc^2$$) or a dimensionless number, hence the error. Vahurzpu (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Self-evidently unphysical nonsense, entirely unsupported by sources. The article's author acknowledged on the draft article's talk page two weeks ago that "It's an original research. You can delete it" (Admin-only link to deleted talk page.) I don't know why the page's creator has decided to WP:REFUND the page and repost it essentially unmodified (aside from adding silly claims about teleportation and time travel), but they should stop wasting other editors' time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, particularly when they make no mathematical sense. I explained how the "references" don't support the text in my earlier comment. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that speedy deletion criterion A11 applies, since there is no credible claim to significance here. And we can throw on G3 as well: whether or not it's a calculated hoax or the work of a true believer, it's blatant misinformation. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt, per nom and Vahurzpu. Whether this is a calculated hoax or just the product of a clueless crank, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought—particularly not nonsensical fringe theories with neither any grounding in the basic principles of physics and mathematics nor any relevant following outside of their author. Perhaps the author might find better luck publishing at Vixra. —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is a hoax, then wouldn't G3 apply? This should be speedily deleted. Mlb96 (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, G3 and A11 both apply, but I tried to outline in the nomination statement that I'm trying to get consensus also to salt. It's already been CSD'd and the creator requested undeletion. I'd like to avoid an infinite cycle of that. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is certainly not a hoax.If you read the article clearly you will by the way might comprehend.It's based on part of a very rare manuscript.(talk). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehedihasn (talk • contribs)
 * Delete and salt as nonsense. Dimensional analysis proves that immediately. From a "very rare manuscript"? No, thanks. We prefer ours well-done. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per G3 and/or A11, and then salt. Obvious pseudoscience is obvious. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 20:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete  obvious nonsense. the disruptive behaviour from Mehedihasn, who is solely here to push his nonsense should result in an indef block. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Especially given trying to remove the AfD notice just now. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Mehidihasn has requested speedy deletion per WP:G7 (If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content of the page was added by its author). As mentioned above, he's agreed to deletion and then asked to bring it back before, so we should still salt the page to forestall any further attempts at take-backsies. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2021 (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.