Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flouron Emission Rays

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 07:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flouron Emission Rays

Believed to be a hoax. See article talk page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - hoax or original research --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - it must be completely false. The energy in a photon is proportional to the frequency. - Richardcavell 04:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete IF this was real then there should be a CERN research paper in existence in order to be cited and referenced.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Hoax or SciFi VikÞor [[User talk:Vik-Thor|Talk]] 05:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete . CERN have nothing on this. Kevin 07:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, original-hoax-research-nonsense. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 09:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax or original research. Beno1000 12:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ProhibitOnions 12:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR and probable hoax. --Doug (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a hoax. The claimed energies emitted are greater than the rest mass of the atoms claimed to emit them (by several orders of magnitude). No references provided in the article.

--Christopher Thomas 17:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a hoax. --DV8 2XL 17:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This shouldn't have gone to AfD. Why wasn't it speedied or prodded? --Constantine Evans 18:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It wasn't speedied because I wanted to make sure it was a hoax, on more than the basis of my own research. At this point, if some other admin wants to close this as a speedy, I wouldn't mind. It wasn't PROD'd because that process would take just as long to finish as AFD, and it ran the risk of someone deprodding it, and me losing track and forgetting to AfD this hoax at that point. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I originally nominated this for speedy deletion, if I remember correctly. 142.3.164.195 20:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Yep. I was just being cautious. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - Just nuke this hoax. Georgewilliamherbert 04:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There are no press releases from CERN or anything to verify the contents of the article, nor is the article even self consistent. If the wavelength of these rays varies from 10^-18 cm to 10^-13 cm, then the frequency range should be 3x10^23 Hz to 3x10^28 Hz. Also, using the given wavelength range, the energy would only go up to 10^14 eV, not 10^18. KristinLee 04:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If Wikipedia adopted a Limbo namespace, this article could be moved to Limbo during the discussion on deletion. Moving an article to Limbo would remove it from the article namespace and prevent search engines from delivering suspicious content while the community decides whether to keep or delete it. For more information, see the discussion on establishing the Limbo namespace. Fg2 07:29, 10 May 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.