Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilation as field (DaF)


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Dilation as field (DaF)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reliable sources given. In fact, no reliable sources discuss the theory (at least under that name.) As I don't fully understand the theory, I can't tell whether reliable sources might discuss it under another name, but I doubt it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Physics has been notified. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Journal of Modern Physics is, so far as I can tell, a sort of vanity press, and the other references are to arxiv articles, which, of course, vary greatly from pure junk to top quality, so no guidance there. All significant entries are by a single author, who gives no information about him/herself. The evidence points to this being largely original research with no peer-reviewed sources. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete. Sources in article not reliable; no reliable sources found on searching. -- 202.124.73.21 (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. No reliable sources. Subject sounds like a joke/hoax. - DVdm (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2013 (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.