Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/THE GENESIS OF 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   speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

THE GENESIS OF TIME

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

Essay-like/textbook-ish. Fails (imo) WP:NOT, just barely. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  05:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Exciting title, goes rapidly downhill from there on. Delete. --fvw *  05:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - you nominated it while I was waiting for my page to refresh so that I could nominate it. This has no interest to a lay audience, and belongs in a journal. (Though the science and math may not be up to scratch). - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   -- Ray (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The math and physics seem wrong to me. In the unlikely case it's right, this is still WP:NOT. Ray (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. I studied a limited amount of astrophysics at university. This is unsalvagably incoherent - I can't even begin to make out what the point of the article is, except that it's trying to make deductions about space-time topology from the basic principles of general relativity. The presentation is so shockingly bad, though, that i can't draw any reasonable thread out of it. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as blatant WP:OR.  siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 13:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete OR and patent nonsense. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails everything. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 15:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * DELETE — FULL OF FAIL. MuZemike  ( talk ) 15:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per AlexTiefling. JuJube (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Classic case of WP:OR. Completely unsourced. This could probably have been speedy deleted on sight or PROD'ed. Someone e-mail that title to the people who make Doctor Who, though - they could put it to good use. 23skidoo (talk) 20:20, 9 December 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.