Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neutrino telecommunications


 * 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. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrino telecommunications
Unsourced since nine months, but it is easy to find the single source, all other mentionings of this are based on: An article in 2004 New Scientist.

But this seems to be a hoax or the like: Neither Gamberale nor Fonta have a single scientific publication regarding neutrinos (and perhaps not a single one at all, which is a bit harder to check to me), apart from two conference papers regarding cold fusion in 2004 and 2006.

Summary: Extremely non-notable fringe science (and of course WP:BOLLOCKS).

--Pjacobi (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  09:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. Lawrence Cohen  14:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I've never even heard of Neutrino telecommunications, and it is really biased and requires clean up (that is, if it stays). Google brings up a mere 22,000 hits. ― LADY GALAXY 15:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Can you imagine a Wiki in which a single New Scientist article establishes notability? I can, and it scares me.  WP:FRINGE.  (The "cited" astro-ph preprint is competely unrelated to the article topic, except for the presence of "neutrino" and "laser" in the title.)  Bm gub (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Based on fringe-ish physics (PRC is certainly mainstream, but Weber was also almost certainly wrong) with no indication with no indication of widespread impact of any sort. I do not see either of the more relevant cited paper's authors meeting WP:PROF, so no subsuming merge there. The cosmological neutrino "lasing" paper, as mentioned above, is good but only tangentially relevant. Joseph Weber is well over the notability bar, but this obituary indicates that this neutrino stuff was not a significant part of his career. Eldereft (talk) 18:10, 14 January 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.