Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Cunningham

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. Johnleemk | Talk 12:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Cunningham

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Jerzy as nn-bio, with the reason, "'most fundamental theory of physics' is closest thing to a claim of notability, but means nothing if the theory is not accepted as plausible by *competantly* trained physicists." Since I know nothing of theoretical physics, I didn't feel comfortable speedying it. howcheng {chat} 23:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• weak delete zero relevant links from google for "Bruce Cunningham" or "www.originoftheuniverse.com". Smells like original research but not absolutely sure J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  00:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn crank. Ashibaka tock 02:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's difficult to find any details about his theory. His web page seems to be designed to promote his book, and gives few details. His book appears to have attracted almost no attention. He appears to have been a featured speaker at a "Natural Philosophy Alliance" conference, which might be a claim to notability, but that organization seems to be little-known, fringe group. ManoaChild 02:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Del. All but states it is OR. "Self-studied" in this field is almost a guarantee of two things: interest based on the mystical and awestriking status of modern physics, and nevertheless inadequate knowledge for what he claims to have accomplished. The people who can begin to attempt this have about 10 years fulltime study under their belts, so i felt no need for Google-tests before predicting non-notability.
  --Jerzy•t 02:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  
• Cmt: Howcheng's caution is admirable and not resented; i speedy-tagged rather than executing my own speedy to be sure i wasn't the only one it was obvious to; our different judgement on it is good reason for the AfD route rather than speedy, so thanks.
  --Jerzy•t 02:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 09:42, 19 January 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.