Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New de Broglie's paradox


 * 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 Speedy deleted under G5 (edits made by banned user). Hut 8.5 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

New de Broglie&

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

Original research; see related AFDs at Heisenberg's paradox and Inversion of logic in Schrödinger equation. Bm gub (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per nom and WP:OR and WP:RS Fattyjwoods  ( Push my button  ) 01:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. nneonneo talk 02:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Definitely original research.  Anturiaethwr 03:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as original research B figura  (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as original research; unsupported by reliable sources. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It's not a theory, it's not a research. Therefore nobody can repute it as original.  The de Broglie's interpretation on the relation λ=h/p indeed is disproved by that experiment (Michelson-Morley agglutinated to Davisson-Germer experiment).  If any theorist want to refute such a fact, he can do it in the page Discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.48.110.3 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 21 April 2008
 * MightyWarrior wrote: unsupported by reliable sources . So, MIghtWarrior claims that the Mathematics is not a reliable source.  Therefore we cannot take seriously his opinion, since he states that he does not consider the Mathematics as a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.48.110.3 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 21 April 2008


 * Reply You are exactly right. If you read Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and WP:SYN you will see that application of mathematics is not a reliable source, it is synthesis, a form of Original Research that does not belong as the basis for an article in Wikipedia. -Verdatum (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:OR.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 12:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious OR. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The article shows a paradox. There is not such a thing as a  original paradox.  The paradox is a paradox.  The paradox shown in the article is supported by the MATHEMATICS.  Therefore the process of its verifiability must be made by considering the MATHEMATICS.  If nobody discovered a paradox yet, it does not mean that it is an original paradox.  There is not such a thing as original paradox.  A paradox exists, or not.  If the MATHEMATICS PROVES that the paradox exists, it makes no sense to call it as an original paradox.  It is merely a paradox, and it exists thanks to the MATHEMATICS, and not because somebody discovered it . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.141.116.203 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 21 April 2008
 * I suspect that the above editor is the same user as -- MightyWarrior (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And again, the first rule to discuss AfD: " The debate is not a vote ; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken,  sustained by arguments".


 * Delete as WP:OR, possibly WP:SYN if the parts are sourced somewhere. That it is a paradox is WP:OR as we define it.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:OR and complete nonsense. --Bduke (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Bduke said: ...and nonsense too
 * Dear Bduke, you must prove what you say. It's easy to claim that somebody says nonsense.  Look, for example I can write:  "Bduke says nosenses".  But I would have to prove that you say nonsenses.  Dont you think so?
 * And again, the first rule to discuss AfD: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken,  sustained by arguments".
 * Comment. To the second point, I did. I said delete as OR, which it clearly is. On the first point, the Quantum Ring Theory appears to be noticed by no reliable scientific sources. It is merely the work of one man who dreamed it up. I still maintain it is nonsense. Now, while AfD is not a vote, it is conventional to bold the word "Keep" only once and introduce comments on other comments with the word "comment" as I have just done. In that way the closing admin can get a good quick idea of the consensus before looking deeper. Also please sign your comments with ~ . --Bduke (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Arthur Rubin wrote: "That it is a paradox is WP:OR as we define it".
 * Well, Arthur, in such a case we must delete the article Wave–particle duality, where it's written the following, concerning to de Broglie's paradox:
 * "Various interpretations of quantum mechanics attempt
 * to explain this ostensible paradox".
 * The theorists noted the de Broglie's paradox many years ago. However, the old version of de Broglie's paradox is only philosophical.
 * This New de Broglie's paradox shows the old de Broglie's paradox from a new way: via mathematics.   Therefore the argument in favor of this new version of the de Broglie's paradox is stronger, because it is supported by the mathematics, while the old version was supported by philosophical arguments only.
 * Comment. No, the old version can be supported by sources. The mathematics has not been. We report sources, so this article is original research as "we define it" as Arthur Rubin said. --Bduke (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If you look at the related AfDs, This user appears to have a history of Sockpuppetry, be sure to take note of that when tallying votes. -Verdatum (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Note that the article creator has been blocked as a sock of W. GUGLINSKI, who engaged in the same kind of behavior; see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. sho  y  16:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Close: Article speedily deleted per CSD G5: page created by a banned user in violation of their ban, with no substantial edits by others. nneonneo talk 18:06, 22 April 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.