Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trimorphic Resonance


 * 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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Trimorphic Resonance
Crank. Pseudo science. Original research. -- RHaworth 17:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Crankery with one follower, according to Google. Pilatus 17:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, although being pseudoscience alone is not criteria for deletion. It is its non-notability which makes it worthy of deletion. --MacRusgail 18:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz talk [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|24px]] 23:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. MCB 04:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research, and nonsense. TheMadBaron 05:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This man has spent a NUMBER of years, written and published numerous books on this subject, and is genuinely interested in finding a way to unify science and religion. I am not sure how these things work, but i am for keeping the entry, and allowing it to be expanded, or maybe explained in more layman friendly terms. User:ScottYates 22:02, 25 October 2005 (CST)


 * 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.