Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law of the Universe


 * 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 per WP:SNOW and (per author comments here that "the material is original") WP:CSD. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Law of the Universe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be a hoax/a buch of gibberish/something made-up by the article's creator. Originally CSD tagged G3 but, the speedy tag was removed by the article's creator, so I am listing if for an AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: At the end of the diabete please advice me so I can answer before wrong decisions are taken. Prenote (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: At the end of the diabete please advice me so I can answer before wrong decisions are taken. Prenote (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as pretty clear patent nonsense. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * User Deacon Vorbis is a bad User for does not give explanations and gives sentences. Please explain the nonsense. Furthermore "patent nonsense" is registered here as an indirect menace. — Prenote • (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC+1)


 * Delete I agree with the "nonsense" assessment. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: as to whether it fits the speedy criterion for patent nonsense I'm unsure because the sentences are occasionally somewhat coherent but either way it's clearly made up and not for Wikipedia.   Dr Strauss   talk   20:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * DrStrauss, I formatted the page in better understandable language, now the problem seems to be that is really technically high or an argumentation copied from University material. In effect they are difficult arguments for common people. Regards. — Prenote • (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC+1)


 * Delete. Incoherent gobbldegook. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC).
 * Xxanthippe, your user is marked for proposed deletion, by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users. — Prenote • (talk) 12:40, 03 September 2017 (UTC+1)


 * Delete as unremarkable nonsense. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * XOR&#39;easter, I found on that movie "The Connected Universe" hypnotic material on presentation. — Prenote • (talk) 13:20, 31 September 2017 (UTC+1)
 * I formatted the page in better understandable language, now the problem seems to be that is really technically high or an argumentation copied from University material. In effect they are difficult arguments for common people. Regards. — Prenote • (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC+1)
 * I've noticed you've copied and pasted that exact message onto several of the user talk pages of the participants in this AfD, including mine. A piece of advice for the future, you can use  in your messages here and that notifies the user in question.  That way, you'll be able to ensure that the discussion doesn't get fragmented.  Furthermore, just to answer some of your questions,  isn't a bad user, the phrase patent nonsense refers to an established editing guideline (link) and isn't a term he's using to attack you with (correct me if I'm wrong Deacon).  Thanks,   Dr Strauss   talk   18:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as inappropriate synthesis. Famous  dog   (c) 11:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OR-Famousdog, The material is original. — Prenote • (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC+1)
 * I formatted the page in better understandable language, now the problem seems to be that is really technically high or an argumentation copied from University material. In effect they are difficult arguments for common people. Regards. — Prenote • (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC+1)


 * WP:SNOW. A speedy deletion tag was already removed by the article creator, and another would be quite appropriate.  Per the responses so far, just put the article out of its misery. Lithopsian (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW-Lithopsian, I was just familiarizing with your Encyclopedia. — Prenote • (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC+1)
 * I formatted the page in better understandable language, now the problem seems to be that is really technically high or an argumentation copied from University material. In effect they are difficult arguments for common people. Regards. — Prenote • (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC+1)


 * Delete Rambling essay. Also makes an inaccurate claim that Galileo Galilei was tortured. The relevant article mentions that Galilei was threatened with torture, but never actually tortured. Dimadick (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. Now I remember, he was threatened with torture. I'm going to modify immediately the page. I'm trying to complete with more argumentations. In effect the exposition was initially too summed up, futhermore I found incomplete the information concerning the paradoxes of contemporary Physics and the difficulties in reaching grand laws or theories. I'm going to clarify the point. — Prenote • (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC+1)
 * I take the significates that I need and I want. Coffe • 09:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC+1)


 * 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.