Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N-Curve


 * 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. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

N-Curve
No basis or scientific grounding; possible vanity page?


 * Delete per nomination. - LichYoshi 11:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This N-Curve is in relation to the Pinowski Curve and J-Curve, and was based on the same research.  It has only recently been theorized, and thus may not be widely recognized yet.  It is part of an obscure branch of research, but should remain here for future reference. Do not delete, please. -Dr. Nicholas Langer, discoverer of the N-Curve (actually 141.154.137.115 2005-10-24 13:51:46 UTC according to edit history. Uncle G 19:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC))
 * This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now.  Delete.  Putting it in its best light, it's still unverifiable original research. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per nomination. It is unfair of you to remove this entry solely because my research is not yet widespread in the media or in the science world, and is thus "unverifiable." My results were based on independent research along with my two colleagues Dr. John F. Duval and Dr. Andrew Pinowski.  We only recently published our theories in small, independent science newsletters, but will soon release our findings to the public in a more widespread form.  I have listed my findings here first only as a step towards getting my research out into the public.  I insist that you keep this, as well as the Pinowski and J-Curves.  -Dr. Nicholas Langer, discoverer of the N-Curve - DrLanger89 13:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC) (actually 141.154.137.115 2005-10-25 15:27:09 UTC according to edit history. Uncle G 19:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC))
 * Delete, we have a specific policy for this: No original research. Kappa 18:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The author,, has told us outright above that this is original research. See also  and . Delete. Uncle G 19:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; It's not even original research, just uncreative writing. &mdash; RJH 19:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this utter tosh. Even if it wasn't tosh it'd count as original research. Real science gets published in peer reviewed journals. Average Earthman 19:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination 70.27.59.200 19:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete probably hoax; precisely 0 Google hits for any combination of the three names the author gives; also 0 hits for "Pinowski Curve". &mdash; Haeleth Talk 22:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; pretty much the definition of original research. MCB 02:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Hoax. I'd call it 'original research', but it seems to be trying to pass off an X-Y plot as original, by plotting zero over time and 'discovering' that the line is horizontal. Peter Grey 07:11, 26 October 2005 (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.