Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hododyne


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE. Owen&times; &#9742;  17:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hododyne
I say it's a hoax, 0 Google. BadSeed 11:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Hi folks. Sorry I did not read the "no original research" restriction before posting this entry to Wikipedia. The hododyne is not a hoax but it is original research and new terminology so I guess it has to get the axe. I can verify the hododyne if a Wikipedia editor in astronomy and physics is willing to contact me. The proof of the hododyne and its role in celestial mechanics is a rather large file of 3 mb but I can send it if it would help to get the hododyne entry here. I'm a big fan of Wikipedia and completely understand the need for strict criteria. - D.S. Marlin, Marlsda@aol.com
 * Delete - hoax, or at best, original research, so unsuitable for WP. --Oscarthecat 11:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, looks like original research and if it isn't, it's unverifiable with no references given. (I'm guessing the creator User:Marlsda is the same person as the D.S. Marlin mentioned in the article.) - Bobet 11:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete hoax, unverifable. --Terence Ong 12:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Hoax, but Hilarious, I'd hate to see it go! &mdash;This user has left wikipedia  12:59 2006-01-23
 * Delete nonsense wrapped in the veneer of mathematics Avi 13:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Astrokey44 |talk 15:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, possible BJAODN candidate. "Newton did so in an a priori fashion."  Newton was THAT SMART.  Gives a whole new meaning to "finishing before you begin." KrazyCaley 17:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - hoax. Latinus 21:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 03:30Z 


 * 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.