Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law of no laws

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 semi-speedy delete. Seems pretty clear cut to me. -- Steel 23:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Law of no laws

Law of no laws (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Prod removed without comment. Looks like Original Research, uncited, attributed to two unknown people. (One specified originator is a redlink, the other a common name that links to a DAB page, none of which look relevant.) Author has apparently been inserting OR into other articles all over the place. Fan-1967 23:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment John Wheeler is probably John Archibald Wheeler, who is fond of, shall we say, out-of-the-box thinking, but of a less trivial sort than we see in the article under discussion. --Trovatore

• Delete unless citations are provided. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not particularly well versed in physics or whatever this is, but it's worth mentioning that the creator of this article has been inserting blatant OR into a couple of other articles and has been blocked for it. -- Steel 23:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's supposed to be philosophy. Check out author's user page for his definition of Reliable Sources. Glad it's been a long time since I was an undergrad. Fan-1967 23:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete trash. Danny Lilithborne 23:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Looking over the edits of the author and his previous anon incarnation, I wonder why this obvious troll hasn't been indefblocked. Danny Lilithborne 23:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Add this IP's contribs also, which look like him when he wasn't logged in today. Fan-1967 23:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • And this one, which includes an unblock request, though the log shows no block. Odd. Whois shows that IP, and the one Danny listed, as a range belonging to New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, not exactly a hotbed of breaking philosophical treatises. Fan-1967 23:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per A1, possibly also G1. There's probably something real to what he's describing, and there's probably already an article which describes it. But I'm not enough of a math buff to track it down. Argyriou (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy A1 per Argyriou. No context, obvious hoax/OR by obvious vandal. Tevildo 23:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy. I agree this fits A1. For non-speedy, this is a non-notable concept as well. CMummert 23:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete complete bollocks. (A bollock is Either of two blocks attached to the topsail-yard in a ship, for the topsail-ties to reeve through, see Funk & Wagnalls New "Standard" Dictionary (Reg. U.S. Pat. Off.) of the English Language 1947) --Trovatore 23:20, 4 January 2007 (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.