Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superluminal graviton


 * 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   G3 by Lradrama, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Superluminal graviton

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

Unsourced original research. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete- this is original research and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Reyk  YO!  07:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Almost speedy under G1, but I think it's more WP:HOAX than nonsense per se.  LotLE × talk  07:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When someone signs the article they wrote, can it just be deleted for being from one person's perspective? Craig Montgomery (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, Salt, Tie it to lead and kick it off the deck - WP:OR, WP:HOAX, WP:ARRRGGGGHH! LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR. We already have a Superluminal article. As an aside, the seven Google hits (apart from the WP article, and including at least one blog, which references Superluminal anyway!) for "superluminal graviton" do not exactly look promising. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Pure, weapons grade bolognium. Also OR, too. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 13:06, 11 July 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.