Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molecular Gravity


 * 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. Closing per obvious consensus. —  Aitias  // discussion 04:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Molecular Gravity

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

Incoherent, unscientific. Strong delete. StonerDude420 (talk) 08:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Original research/hoax/pseudoscience/neutrality issues/not notable/written in first person/etc. Someone's definitely bored at work.  Graymornings (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect- That guy's work is 100% original research but the page might serve as a redirect to Molecular attraction. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unless a better target for redirect is found. Molecular attraction might be something completely different. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 08:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - pure OR with no other value as I mentioned in the prod. I'm not really all that sure if the redirect is really appropriate.  I am trying to figure out the specific meaning that this phrase has in RS's, but so far, I am not entirely able to ascertain if it is germane to Molecular attraction. -Seidenstud (talk) 08:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, no redirect. Creating a redirect to intermolecular forces would suggest a link between IMFs and gravity, which simply doesn't exist. A few sources seem to refer to "molecular gravity" as a (completely unrelated) physical property of substances akin to specific gravity, but I can't find any clear definition to work from. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 09:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Consists completely of OR, as the page itself says that it is the writer's own theory. No reason whatsoever to keep this misleading page, delete ASAP.  C h a m a l  talk 12:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this essay. siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 15:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - original research, unredeemable. Wily D 17:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Blog/original research/essay, even if this was the place to publish theories there is nothing of scientific merit in this theory. --Wadeperson (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * delete - original research as edit history clearly proves. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's gonna be a whiiiiiiite Christmas...  Graymornings (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete Non-scientific, No accurate information, This guy was definitely bored while editing this.--Pookeo9 (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2008 (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.