Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite nesting

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 delete. DS 19:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infinite nesting

Complete bollocks. Fails to meet just about every criterion for an article. Someone's personal musings. Not much else to be said, really. Perhaps the fact that the author of the article has "licensed" his "theory" under the GPL (and says so in the article) should prove beyond doubt that this is original pseudophysics/pseudophilosophy "research". Byrgenwulf 07:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom as original research. The licensing is indeed a tip-off. --Dhartung | Talk 09:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• The licensing convinces me that this is original research, too. Yes, fractal theory talks about fractals having "an infinite nesting of self-similar structure at all scales". That's nothing to do with what this article is propounding. The final statement of the theory, that "we live in an H₂ molecule", reminds me of Plutonium Atom Totality Theory. Delete. Uncle G 10:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Don't be stupid... leave it as is. It just a theory, people must know the alternatives. Such people as you burned Giordano Bruno. If you don't agree, add your arguments. Denis tarasov 10:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a discussion forum for editors to have new theories of physics peer reviewed by other editors. The places for doing that are the many physics journals that exist. Uncle G 11:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR. When I first saw this article I contacted the contributor and asked for verifiable sources, but none have been forthcoming. The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Accurizer 11:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• I'll add the citation. About the "license" - this is realy widely known theory. But there are no "oficial" publications on this theory, because of some sort of "short thinking" of some people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Denis tarasov (talk • contribs) 2006-09-18 11:03:46 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR and WP:V. Sorry must make your pet theories known and notable elsewhere. Only then they can be considered for inclusion into an encyclopedia. --Pjacobi 11:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Nigel ^(Talk) 12:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.TheRingess 12:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Charlesknight 13:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. Recury 13:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, because Giordano Bruno got what he deserved. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Gandalf61 14:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — with a hearty laugh and thanks to Smerdis. Anville 19:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. --Nishkid64 21:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete clear violation of WP:OR. If Delete had been a course-of-action option, Giordano Bruno would not have been burned. We have made some progress in 406 years.Jdclevenger 22:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• My original research? You flatter me. If I am the first, who express this theory, write a Wikipedia article about me ;) Denis tarasov 08:30, 19 September 2006 (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.