Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frequenton-Photon


 * 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  MBisanz  talk 03:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Frequenton-Photon

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to be WP:OR, but I'd appreciate a physicist's assessment. The most recent work cited is from 1933, and the article is written in an argumentative tone.  Sandstein  20:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This article needs reworking to fit an encyclopedia entry Letsdrinktea (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:OR Nonsense. Even if it was a theory at the beginning of the 20th century it does not warrant a page on its own. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, it is not WP:OR, but it is the views of one man Bahjat Muhyedeen, which pretty much go against what is current scientific thinking.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, How is it OR? Needs a rewrite that is all.Smallman12q (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So point us to the RSs from which to re-write it. Sgroupace (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note most of this article seems a rip off of this scientific paper. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, Delete. EagleFan (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not quite OR because it has been published. But a totally non-notable fringe theory. No evidence that the scientific community has even bothered to look at it. (Also need to delete stuff from Bahjat Muhyedeen which has been used as coatrack for his theories.) -- Sgroupace (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sgroupace. Salih  ( talk ) 07:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think Sgroupace has said it all. This bizarre article about an equally bizarre crackpot theory lacks reliable sources and notability. Reyk  YO!  12:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: As Sgroupace says, a fringe theory of absolutely no notability. I can't find any evidence for it having been discussed in the scientific literature, other than in Bahjat Muhyedeen's own papers, and the only positive hits I can find on Google are those papers, this wikipedia page, and the page on Bahjat Muhyedeen. Scog (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fringe nonsense. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly a non-notable, fringe theory.--Sloane (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as synthesis and fringe nonsense. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  —Sloane (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2009 (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.