Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rotational symmetry of quantized space-time


 * 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. Tone 15:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC) The inappropriate comment of "The Bushranger" is insulting 60 internationally highly respected scientists! The article was never meant to describe an accomplished fact of science but the discussion process towards a model that in fact combines unambiguously quantum physics with the theory of relativity. This discussion process will be never finished, as humans will never understand the reason why anything exists at all. However, the discussion has now reached a point that it is worth to share the current results in public. To explain to me that Wikipedia may be only the right place to integrate these scientific findings after they have been spread across all other media on a global scale could have been said in a polite way, without calling the recognized competence of all listed renowned scientist that are in fact all involved in the ongoing discussion into question. Many thanks to all other valuable comments to help us to decide about the right moment to publish in Wikipedia. Until this moment please pay in Wikipedia attention to the fact that "Rotational symmetry of quantized space-time" and "Escape of time" is protected by copyright. Thanks again, Henryk --Frystacki (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Rotational symmetry of quantized space-time

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Gibberish essay.TimothyRias (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:OR and WP:SYN None of the sources deal with the subject in any sense. Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  22:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OR and WP:COPYVIO of . --Kkmurray (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:OR, WP:NOTESSAY - and probably fails WP:CSD criteion G3. If there was a theory that"unifies quantum physics and the special theory of relativity and general theory of relativity," this would be the lead article in every science journal, and possibly even HUGE TYPE on the front of the New York Times as the greatest scientific achievement of the millenia (or perhaps ever). Presenting this theory here as an accomplished fact of science is a blatant hoax. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 02:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete on the basis of verifiability at least. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete, original research. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 13:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - original research filled with wild speculation. Bearian (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. On second glance of the article and the source from which it is cribbed, this is complete nonsense to me. Bearian (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Dr Frystacki,
 * Delete, no reliable secondary sources on the discussed subject itself, as needed for such a subject (WP:PSTS). -- Crowsnest (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I note that this article contained a list of many eminent physicists under the heading "group of involved experts", so I await with interest a reply to this email that I just sent to the originator of this theory/hypothesis/conjecture/model/whatever:

I note that clicking on "Participants" on your web site brings up a list of eminent scientists under the heading "Invitation / Participation in scientific discussions". Have any of these have actually accepted an invitation to participate in discussion of your hypotheses?


 * Phil Bridger (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2010 (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.