Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple canonical quantization

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:23, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Simple canonical quantization
I know this article is wrong. Phys 19:48, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Original research, to say it politely. Complete with author's signature and bad spelling. Delete. --Pjacobi 20:15, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)


 * Keep: Not original research.
 * @ Pjacobi:
 * Let me congradulate you on having actually read the article to notice spelling errors.
 * Firstly spelling can be corrected. When I wrote it I was having trouble getting the Latex to process correctely.  Second, you are supposed to sign your contributions otherwise there would be no accountability in the process here on Wikipedia.  Third the sources for this emergent theory are given at the bottom of the page, unlike all the pov and Npov in the more popular articles on Quantum gravity.  Furthermore a link to an empty page on a simmilar theory has been added as an unfilled link to the "Quantum Gravity" page.  That would be the Shakarov approach to the problem a.k.a "Discrete Lorentzian Quantum gravity"  Or Lorentian lattice theory.  Just because you have not heard of something does not make it new.
 * @Phys:
 * Present a counter argeument. A easy to confront portion would be the section on Schwarzchild radius.  If the article present false information, If this is just made up gobledy gook a simple matrix calculation should show falsehood if it exist.
 * If you want more education on the matter please read the sources. Dig deeper.
 * --HFarmer 00:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * No, you are very much not supposed to sign your contributions in the article space. I vote delete, as original reasearch. Also, I had to list this article on VfD, please follow the VfD instructions next time, Phys.&mdash;Ben Brockert (42) 05:09, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * How is this not original research? The first source say "On this website I postulate my very own theory of canonically quantized space-time and gravitation. I postulated this theory originally in complete ignorance of any approach other than string theory" and the page is written by Hontas F. Farmer III, who is presumably HFarmer . Kappa 06:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Personal paper by the author. Badly written at best; includes personal comments, a conceited signature, etc... Phils 06:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Well written and interesting. But this is original research, and therefore is not part of Wikipedia.  Still, I look forward to this author's future contributions, and hope that this does not ruin his Wikipedia experience.  Also, I look forward to the inclusion of this article once this theory has been more fully examined by the scientific community and discussed by a variety of sources.  For now, I fear that my vote must be delete.  --L33tminion | (talk) 07:20, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * del. Mikkalai 08:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research Lectonar 08:14, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. Very much suggest the author investigate Wikinfo, which welcomes signed articles, subjects them to peer review, and generally advocates a sympathetic point of view as opposed to NPOV. Andrewa 12:49, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article itself categorizes simple canonical quantization as a "proto-theory." Wikipedia is a secondary reference for established theories that have gained a measure of acceptance, not a vehicle for the dissemination of information on up-and-coming theories. We do have articles on disputed or questionable phenomena or theories, when it can be shown that the theory has so many adherents that the belief system is a notable fact in itself, regardless of truth; but no evidence has been shown that "simple canonical quantization" falls in this category. None of the references appear to be about simple canonical quantization as such, but appear to be references for facts that the writer uses as a basis for the theory. Very significantly, "simple canonical quantization" gets no hits at all in Google groups, and it is hard to believe it would never have been mentioned at all in any of the physics newsgroups if it had any significant currency. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. Josh Cherry 17:46, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete --RoySmith 19:31, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Original research. Jayjg |  (Talk)  01:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. The Wikipedia policy is clear on this issue. Hontas Farmer, I wish you good luck in your endeavour to be reviewed by a wider scientific audience. Axl 12:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.