Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum Ring Theory at Temple University


 * 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 WP:SNOW delete— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 07:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Quantum Ring Theory at Temple University

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is more of the same non-notable content has posted at Quantum Ring Theory (AFD), "Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion" (AFD), and Don Borghi's experiment (AFD) to promote his own theories. Additionally, the sole (possibly) notable content of this article is the section on a "rival" book, which certainly lends nothing to the notability of the subject at hand. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * CONFLICT OF INTERESTS between Wiki users. Alberon started the discussion  proposing the deletion of the article by alleging that it has conflict of interests.  So I proved to him that the article is neutral, and there is not conflict of interests.  Now someguy claims that the article is non-notable.
 * Someguy, I understand that the rivality between Quo Vadis QM and QRT is not of your interest, because you are not a physicist. Therefore it is not of your interest if such a rivality comes to the knowledge of people really interested in Physics, or not.  It is irrelevant to you.
 * However such rivality can be of the interest of people that worry on the questions concerning Physics. Why do you think do you have the right to supress their right in getting knowledge on the rivality between the two books ?
 * The book QRT is quoted in the journal Frontier Perspectives, published by the Temple University, which just promoted the publication of the book Quo Vadis QM. So, the editor Nancy Kolenda of that journal considered important to publish in the journal a review on a rival book.
 * Do you think that the editor Nancy Kolenda does not know what she is doing ? W.GUGLINSKI (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: This one too. SPA creator only trying to promote these few things.  It is not notable yet, as of today.  Rjd0060 (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ...only trying to promote these few things ?????????????????
 * I suspect you are a physicist trying to avoid these few things to fall in the knowledge of people W.GUGLINSKI (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is no cabal. Please assume good faith. shoy  (words words) 03:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I realize I may be stepping into a bit of a hornet's nest here, but here goes: Given that the article on Quantum Ring Theory has already been deleted, an article which compares it to another book (as near as I can tell - the article is kind of incoherent) is not appropriate at this time. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 02:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: This theory must be suppressed. --Philosophus T 02:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * More seriously (see WP:HUMOR), this isn't notable and isn't verifiable per WP:V, WP:RS, and the AS criteria of WP:ARB/PS. --Philosophus T 02:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.   jj137  ( Talk ) 02:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, this isn't even an article. Hopefully the user involved here ceases using Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle voluntarily before more drastic measures are needed. shoy  (words words) 03:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. User warned for article creations and referred to WP:ANI. Michaelbusch (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 07:00, 18 November 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.