Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torah Cosmos

This is a Archived delete debate. The result of the discussion was to delete the article.

Torah Cosmos

 * Tin-foil hat stuff, incoherent, insignificant, and uncontextualized. -- Nunh-huh 00:59, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Delete.  RickK 02:47, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Keep an eye on Octaeteris. Mikkalai 03:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete original research.(I am using the term research very loosely) Also check "what links here" . The author has put a link on Torah wich needs to go tootheresa knott 13:43, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * must stay. you are hindering science. your personal knowledge or belief into the torah may not be the border for whole science. go and study the torah cosmos for details. further, if you dont stop insulting me i teach you lawyers - last warning - researcher of torah cosmos - Sihan
 * By the way, you were reverted because you altered others' responses, regardless of trivial insults. Don't do it again.  RadicalBender 19:45, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * i did believe insults must be removed, sorry will not happen again. but please stop that religious motivated organised vandalism. we do serious science here.
 * Scientists are happier when they discover that criticism of their results is not a personal insult.- Nunh-huh 23:13, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately wikipedia replies ARE personal insult. just habe a look around.Sihan 00:00, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)
 * Delete - Based on what I am hearing this is just an advert for the site - Texture 20:04, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually you are not "hearing" anything. You illusion.Sihan 00:00, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)
 * Delete - The worst kind and most transparent kind of astronomical hokum. Octaeteris should be deleted too. --Decumanus 20:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * You prove you are without understanding by requesting octaeteris to be deleted. Anybody else has brought no proof for delete-claim at all. It's just mood, envy and semi-religious fanatism. Sihan 00:00, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)
 * I changed my vote on octaetris. It's listed in the Wolfram site . You had contaminated the page on it with your own edits. An archaic term, to be sure, but inclusion at Weisstein's site is good enough for me. Can't say the same about your stuff. Sorry, but it doesn't belong here.--Decumanus 14:30, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I cannot have "contaminated" Octaeteris page because it is originally from ME, after searching the web for info on it but allmost none found, except your reference. Just before i registered my account i did insert the first detailed entry on Octaeteris as first tries to write a wiki topic. I was that amazed by the idea and how fast it worked, that i then registered and enhanced my entry further by some numbers. The Torah Cosmos Ref. though was a part of the entry from the start.--Sihan 20:12, 2004 Mar 23 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. -- Cyan 00:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. -Rholton 02:50, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Seriously delete -Seth Mahoney 19:42, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. Syntax 01:55, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)