Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical nullification


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Physical nullification

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

As explained at WikiProject Physics Talk, this page is an exercise in Original Research on a non-notable topic. Google returns 17 hits on "physical nullification", not including WP and mirrors, most of which don't refer to this topic (e.g., "the physical nullification and conjugal rape experienced by many women in the West"). Without a source indicating that Robert Forward's idea was directly based on Isaac Asimov's, then collecting them together is OR. The same goes for the part about wormholes &mdash; it's OR because we have no evidence that Forward said any of it, and it probably just stems from the imagination of, trying to connect an old SF idea with something more modern.

If you cut out the OR, there's not enough left to merit an article. The subject is without foundation in modern science (as JRSpriggs says, "The positive energy of matter and radiation is balanced by the gravitational potential energy which is negative. There is no basis for believing that any other kind of negative energy is possible. The article is pure speculation."). It's non-science, and it's not even widely known or visible non-science, the basic criterion of WP:FRINGE. Anville 20:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:OR.--Bryson 21:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The concept was in fact first suggested, in some detail, by E.E. (Doc) Smith in his "Lensman" series of Sci-Fi novels. But this article fails WP:OR--Anthony.bradbury 23:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I understand nothing about the article but I'd like to thank the WikiProject Physics people for quickly answering my call on this one. I don't have any reason to doubt their assessment of this page as complete bunk (that was my initial feeling also). Pascal.Tesson 01:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is more an essay than an article, and its much of its material is covered in a much better and more concise from at exotic matter. The deciding factor on deletion vs. redirection is that "physical nullification" is a neologism apparently devised by the creator of the article, making that title itself OR. --EMS | Talk 03:09, 30 March 2007 (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.