Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effloresce (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   Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Effloresce (Physics)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Looks like an OR new theory. No sources to back it up, and a search turned up nothing. Basa lisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. OR essay. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, unsourced, amateurish, clap-trap. Hairhorn (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC).
 * Strong delete as unsourced original research and per the guideline on things that were made up. In other, more humorous words, see WP:CB. Chris the Paleontologist  (talk • contribs) 23:09, 16 January 2012 (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.