Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euclidean natural units
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Euclidean natural units
original research. i never heard of "Euclidian natural units". article creator cannot answer necessary fundamental questions about it on the Talk:Natural units page. r b-j 01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. When Googled with quotes, 352/354 results are all links to the same article on a math&science forum under two filenames. The original research seems to make sense (though it is without any sources), but it is original research, and, as per WP:OR, should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamunknown (talk • contribs) 19:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- i dunno what sense you can make of it. it cannot be a complete set of Natural units unless it normalizes or fixes 3 universal physical constants (to get natural units for length, time, and mass). or 4 if you include a natural unit of charge or 5 if you include temperature. r b-j 02:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I apologize. I should have clarified what I made of the .pdf file. I briefly scanned over the .pdf and thought it did not look like patent nonsense. I am unqualified to determine if it makes sense mathematically or physically, however, as I am ignorant of natural units and much of the math used in the .pdf file. --Iamunknown 02:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- it's okay. patent nonesense is unreadable gobbledegook that is pretty obvious to anyone. i could find no hits whatsoever when i Google either "Euclidean natural units" or "Euclidian natural units" with quotes. but the page, along with two others (that i listed below), are nonsense from a science or physics POV. r b-j 02:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I apologize. I should have clarified what I made of the .pdf file. I briefly scanned over the .pdf and thought it did not look like patent nonsense. I am unqualified to determine if it makes sense mathematically or physically, however, as I am ignorant of natural units and much of the math used in the .pdf file. --Iamunknown 02:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- i dunno what sense you can make of it. it cannot be a complete set of Natural units unless it normalizes or fixes 3 universal physical constants (to get natural units for length, time, and mass). or 4 if you include a natural unit of charge or 5 if you include temperature. r b-j 02:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; uncited, and as a mathematician, it strikes me as nonsense. There is no such thing as time or light in Euclidean geometery.--Prosfilaes 04:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Michael 06:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above; patent or not, this is utter nonsense, and OR. --LambiamTalk 08:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nonsensical original research. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Localzuk (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, perhaps salt. The link is this, and it is even more nonsensical (although not patent nonsense) than the article. Septentrionalis 01:37, 9 August 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.
